5. With respect to the processing of the petition, on April 24, 2005, the Commission requested the additional information on the judicial remedies pursued in the domestic jurisdiction in relation to his case. On June 14, July 10, and July 18, 2006, the Commission received communications from the petitioner by which she submitted additional information. On August 8, 2006, the Commission forwarded a copy of the pertinent parts of the petition and the briefs containing additional information to the State, which was given two months to submit observations, in keeping with Article 30(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 6. On August 28 and November 22, 2006, the Commission received briefs containing additional information from the petitioner, which were forwarded to the State for its observations. On January 11, 2007, the Commission received a brief from the State by which it requested that a copy of the initial petition be sent to it again 4; it was resent on February 23, 2007. On March 28, 2007, a brief of additional information was received from the petitioner, which was passed on to the State for its observations. 7. On May 4, 2007, the State’s brief of observations was received 5; it was transmitted to the petitioner on May 29, 2007, for her observations. On May 7 and 16, 2007, the Commission received briefs with additional information from the petitioner, which were transmitted for the State. On June 29, 2007, the Commission received the petitioner’s observations, which were transmitted to the State for its observations. On May 21, 2008, the Commission asked the petitioner for up-to-date information on the situation of the alleged victim, which was sent in on June 4, 2008, and forwarded to the State for its observations. On October 2 and 20, 2008, the Commission received additional information from the petitioner, which was transmitted to the State for its observations. On December 3, 2008, the Commission received additional information from the petitioner, which was transmitted to the State for its observations. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioner’s position 8. By way of background, the petitioner notes that as of October 22, 2002, Raúl José Díaz Peña, like many other Venezuelans, went to witness the demonstrations which at that time were taking place at the Plaza Francia in the Altamira section of Caracas. 6 On February 25, 2003, at the same time as the attacks were perpetrated, using explosives, against the Consulate General of the Republic of Colombia and the International Trade Office (Oficina de Comercio Internacional) of the Kingdom of Spain 7, Raúl José Díaz Peña was at Plaza Altamira. The petitioner argues that due to the attacks the Public Ministry began to make accusations against and persecute those persons who frequented the Plaza Altamira. She argues that several of the persons detained due to these events were subjected to torture by state agents to secure forced confessions. 8 4 Note AGEV/000037 from the Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Relations of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, January 9, 2007. 5 Note AGEV/000600 from the Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Relations of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, May 3, 2007. 6 The petitioner notes that as of October 2002 and for several months, a group of soldiers, who said they were observing Article 350 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, gathered at the Plaza de Altamira in Caracas. Brief from the petitioner received at the IACHR on October 2, 2008. 7 On February 25, 2003, two explosive artifacts exploded near the diplomatic offices of Spain and Colombia. According to press reports, pamphlets were found in the area of the attacks from the Frente Bolivariano de Liberación with slogans supporting the government of President Hugo Chávez. Press information available at:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_2797000/2797977.stm. In addition, information from Radio Nacional de Venezuela indicates that the then-deputy director of the Criminal Investigations Corps (Cuerpo de Investigaciones Penales y Criminalísticas) stated that “the attacks with two powerful bombs against the diplomatic offices of Colombia and Spain (which left four persons with moderate injuries and considerable material damage) were carried out … by terrorists and all our investigations are so oriented.” Press information available at:http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2484. 8 The petitioner notes the witness statements by Silvio Mérida Ortiz before the 22nd Court of First Instance (for Trial) of the Judicial Circuit for the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, Case 347- 05, December 2, 2004. Attached to the brief from the petitioner of June 13, 2006, and Pedro Antonio Sifontes “… Yes I knew Mr. Raúl Díaz, he is a person who was with me at the Plaza, a civilian helping out with security at the plaza, and we dealt with one another directly, I can tell you about the bombs, yes we heard them, yes we learned but I was forced to make statements about things I never knew about … in one of those statements I said that Mr. Luis Chacin who is in the case of us the soldiers …, he carried explosives in a bag and put them in Raúl Díaz’s pick-up, but I never saw those explosives ….” Fourth Court of First 2