113. In the instant case, the Commission first notes that the basic assumption used in the initial investigation of the case before the CICPC was the version of the confrontations, which was evident not only in the way evidence was ordered and gathered – as will be examined hereunder – but particularly in the fact that the Venezuelan State appeared in the case as the offended party and the three deceased victims, as the perpetrators. 114. Secondly, in view of the existence of two radically different versions of the facts, the competent authorities had the obligation to seriously and impartially address both lines of investigation and order any evidence that may be necessary and relevant to elucidate the facts based on the details of each of the versions. The way things played out in this case, the opposite occurred. The evidence gathered was focused on buttressing the official version, that is, in establishing that the patrol vehicles were hit by bullet impacts and the firearms were found at the scene of the crime, as well as the trajectory of the bullets based on the wounds that the bodies presented. Even though these are relevant aspects in an investigation of a violent death, in the particular circumstances of the case, these aspects are enough to overcome the contradiction between the versions. At the same time, the petitioners alleged and the State did not refute that no investigative steps were taken to verify several aspects of the version of the family members and other witnesses, such as reenactment of the events, forensic expertise on the clothing of the victims, to the blood found in the police patrol where Robert Diaz Loreto was taken and the evidence on the mud in his body, the summoning other witnesses singled out by them to testify, among others. 115. The foregoing was also upheld in the ruling on the cassation appeal of May 11, 2010 in which the Chamber of Criminal Cassation determined that during the trial proceedings adequate reasoning was not laid out as to why the “grounds for acquittal on legitimate defense and performance of duty” were found applicable. Additionally, both in this decision on cassation and in the ruling of the Court of Appeals on December 14, 2011, said judicial authorities recognized that relevant evidence was not ordered to be taken in the investigation, even though it was requested throughout the case proceedings. They also recognized that no proper reasoning was provided for the way in which the evidence that was indeed gathered had been evaluated to lead to an acquittal. On this score, the IACHR recalls that in this type of cases the investigatory steps that are taken from the very beginning of the investigation have a significant impact on the ability to adequately elucidate the facts sooner in the proceedings. As such, recognition of these omissions more than eight years after the events, though relevant, is too late now. 116. Thirdly, the Commission notes that the record in the case file does not show that authorities followed a line of investigation relating to the potential link of the incidents to the context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela, with particularly high incidences thereof existing in the State of Aragua. Not only was the State aware of this context, but the Attorney General of the Republic, as the highest investigative authority in Venezuela, had issued public statements recognizing this problem. This being the case, not only the existence of a version differing from the official one, but the consistency of this second version with the fact pattern of said context, made it imperative to exhaust a line of investigation in this direction particularly taking into consideration that one of the elements of the aforementioned context is staging of confrontations to make it look like victims had engaged in a confrontation with police. 117. Though several of the foregoing omissions were recognized, thus far, none have been cured more than 14 years after the events took place. This course of action taken by the Venezuelan State has dimmed prospects for the family members of the victims to find out the truth and obtain justice. 118. Additionally, the Commission underscores the lack of response to the complaints made by the next of kin about the lack of acces to the file, the possibility of being effectively heard during the process and, in general, the prospects of acces to justice in the case. In this context, the IACHR empathizes that the State also failed to conduct a serious and diligent investigation into the crimes reported subsequently by the family members of the three deceased victims and the potential interconnection between them all, which contributes to the denial of justice and has constituted one of the elements of impunity in the instant case. In this regard, the IACHR recalls the particular gravity resulting from the lack of an adequate response, protection and investigation, in the face of acts of violence committed against the same family group, 28