18 These comments are not intended to justify the way in which the Venezuelan judicial system works and the consequences it had in the instant case. Though this is not my intention, I have to mention insofar as were at the presence of human rights. It must be observed that these points were not taken into account to base the decision made in the judgment, let alone to catalogue what a reasonable term or due diligence means in relation to the investigation, inasmuch as it was established that the State failed to comply with the obligation to ensure the exercise of the right to seek, receive and impart information and the right to humane integrity because the investigations did not contribute to or constitute an effective means to guarantee the right to humane treatment and the right to seek, receive and impart information of the alleged victims. In other words, it is mostly because of the defects of the judicial system (at the criminal jurisdiction, considering that, as has been established at the beginning of this dissenting opinion, the victims did not exhaust other remedies, from which it cannot be inferred the same) that the Venezuelan State is held responsible and this responsibility is attributed to it without having analyzed the necessary grounds to establish the State’s responsibility for the system and the judicial service. Furthermore, it is necessary to emphasize, as mentioned in the judgment, the high level of conflict that existed in Venezuela at the moment of the occurrence of the unfortunate and repudiable facts reported, all of which minimizes the State’s responsibility or makes more real the possibility of putting forward the exemption from liability due to the existence of force majeure in the delivery of public utilities. The undersigned does not wish to conclude with this dissenting opinion without pointing out that the violence that existed in Venezuela during the occurrence of the facts analyzed in the case was deplorable; but it has been proven in the foregoing paragraphs that the domestic courts did not have the opportunity to try to find a solution to the conflict brought to the Court’s attention, using its standards, virtues and defects. Only after proving that the proceedings of the State were unsatisfactory or showing that the domestic remedies were not suitable to satisfy the claims is that this matter could have been brought to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American system of protection. Doing the opposite would mean to empty the Venezuelan system of justice. Based on the foregoing, I feel I have the duty and obligation to dissent from the judgment and I hereby present my opinion with the utmost respect for those who have a different point of view. It is expressed, in this way, my reasoning to support my dissenting opinion in this case. Date ut-supra . Pier Paolo Pasceri Judge ad hoc Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary