February 2005, along with other Barrios family members, including a large number of boys and girls.27 34. The petitioners argued that the displacement has caused substantial deterioration in the family members’ living conditions, because they have gone to live in squatter neighborhoods in poor housing with precarious public services. They further stated that the family has had to work in jobs unlike the former ones, and that the youth and children have had to interrupt their schooling.28 They alleged that the family’s ties in living together have been interrupted by displacement to different areas. They argued that thus far the State has failed to provide the conditions and means needed for the family members to return safely and decently to the village of Guanayen, despite the Inter-American Court’s resolution calling upon it to do so.29 They argued that all this has caused the family members to experience feelings of sadness, expulsion, and lack of protection, which has resulted in moral and psychological suffering. They therefore consider that the State has violated Articles 22.1, 5.1, and 5.2 of the American Convention in connection with its Article 1.1, to the detriment of the Barrios family. 35. Concerning the death of Rigoberto Barrios (16), Benito’s nephew, the petitioners stated that on January 9, 2005, he was talking with his friend Genesys Martínez (16) when three policemen came out of a thicket with a revolver and shotgun and in a threatening tone ordered Genesys to get out of there or they would kill her. They indicated that when Rigoberto was left alone, the officers shot at him eight times and left. They indicated that the policemen did not exhibit a warrant and that the minor showed no signs of resisting authority. They stated that his mother took him to the Camatagua hospital, from where he was sent to the San Juan de Los Moros hospital and then to the Maracay hospital, where he died on January 19, 2005, as a result of the gunshot wounds.30 36. Finally, concerning the argument on duplication of proceedings adduced by the State (see IV.B infra.), the petitioners countered that the Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations have not addressed the merits of the case, and that they expressly stated: “without in any way implying a conclusion concerning the facts, we wish to call the attention of Your Excellency’s Government to the basic rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”31 B. Position of the State 37. In response to the petitioners’ arguments, the State invoked the exception of duplication of proceedings established in Article 33 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, citing statements concerning the situation of Narciso, Luis Alberto, and Rigoberto Barrios made by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, on November 16, 2004, and February 2, 2005.32 38. In addition, the State cited Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and asked the Commission to take into account the information supplied on the actions taken with 27 Other displaced family members include: Oneida Barrios with her children Marcos Antonio (14), Sandra Maribí (9), Junio José (5), and Weneidy Barrios (4); Inés Josefina Barrios was displaced with her children Daniel Yoselin (11), Edixon Alexander (10), and Yoahan Ramón Barrios (4); Luisa del Carmen Barrios and her husband; and Néstor Caudi Barrios. Petitioners’ communication received on September 19, 2007, p.10. 28 Students forced to interrupt their schooling are: Darelvia Carolina, Marco Antonio, Sandra Maribí, Daniela Yoselin, and Edixon Alexander Barrios. Petitioners’ communication received on September 19, 2007, p.11. 29 The petitioners cite I/A Court H.R., Case of Eloísa Barrios et al., Provisional Measures. Resolution June 29, 2005, operative paragraph 7. Petitioners’ communication received on September 19, 2007, p. 12. 30 Petitioners’ communication received on September 19, 2007, p. 6. 31 Petitioners’ communication received on September 19, 2007, p. 6. 32 Note IAGEV/000763 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, received on June 20, 2006 pp. 17 and 18. 7