in the investigation is due solely to the lack of diligence and inactivity of the respective authorities. 24. The petitioners also argued that the officials in charge of the investigation failed to collect basic evidence, such as the testimony of Narciso and Luis Alberto,15 Benito Barrios’ brothers who were eyewitnesses of his arrest; and that as of the date the petition was lodged the officials had not conducted on-site forensic investigations such as reconstruction of the scene and physical measurements to prove the alleged shootout with the authorities; ballistic tests to reconstruct the trajectory of the shots; or a proper autopsy of Benito Barrios’ body to determine whether he was tortured.16 25. As arguments of law, the petitioners stated that the arrest that preceded the extrajudicial execution of Benito Barrios was not done with a warrant and he was not told of the reasons for it. They added that it was not a flagrante delicto situation and Mr. Barrios did not resist arrest, even though the police beat him. They added that the purpose of the arrest was not to present the victim before a competent judicial authority, but on the contrary to facilitate his extrajudicial execution. The petitioners argued that these facts constitute violations of the rights established in Articles 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same treaty. 26. The petitioners alleged that from the time Benito Barrios was taken from his home he was in the custody of State agents who were responsible for his life. They alleged that the members of the CSOP did not take him before a competent judicial authority and never explained how he received the gunshot wounds that killed him, and that the investigation has not contributed to clarification of the facts and punishment of the responsible parties. They therefore alleged that the State is responsible for the violation to the right to life guaranteed in Article 4.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations to respect and guarantee set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 27. In addition, they argued that while Benito Barrios was under arrest he was subjected to psychological torture, because in his extremely impotent and totally defenseless state he could foresee his fate. They stated that it is reasonable to infer that the circumstances of his arrest caused him to experience fear, terror, and consequent psychological and moral suffering in violation of the rights guaranteed in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of said instrument. The petitioners further argued that the State, by cloaking the facts in total impunity and allowing authorities to remain indifferent to the petitions and complaints, has caused members of the Benito Barrios family feelings of sadness, impotence, and frustration, in violation of their right to mental integrity established in Article 5.1 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same treaty. 28. Finally, they argued that the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations is shown by the judicial authorities’ failure to respect the principle of reasonable time and their duty for due diligence in conducting basic tests for clarification of the facts and full identification of the responsible parties, generating a situation of impunity, in violation of the rights set forth in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of that instrument. 29. The petitioners argued that the extrajudicial execution of Benito Barrios marked the beginning of an endless struggle to obtain justice and protection from the State, and that despite repeated overtures, the Barrios family has been living in constant fear because of the repeated acts of threats, harassment, searches, house burnings, robberies,17 and assaults by 15 Narciso Barrios was assassinated on December 11, 2003, and Luis Alberto Barrios was assassinated on September 20, 2004. Original petition received on December 30, 2005, p. 14. 16 Original petition received on December 30, 2005, p. 30. 17 The alleged searches, house burnings, and robberies are the subject of Case 12.488, currently in the merits stage. 5