5 domestic legal system” and “they cannot be subsumed in any of the provisions of the Criminal Substantive Law,” and (d) Regarding, the hearing of the case on what happened to several representatives of COFAVIC when they attended a public meeting with the next of kin of execution victims and were “presumably surrounded by officials attached to the Police Forces” while they were in a vehicle “that had been reported to be suspicious,” this was rejected by the Caracas judge, because the events occurred outside his jurisdiction. Orders were given “that the respective case file should be forwarded to the Document Registration and Distribution Office of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Falcón.” 13. That, regarding the investigation into the facts, the representatives indicated, inter alia, that “[t]he investigation into the said threats could not be limited to merely determining their existence; there was an obligation to find out whether they had been made by officials or by individuals without any authority, acting with the support or the simple tolerance of the State.” Despite this, the investigation was “merely designed to look into the existence of the offense but not to identify the authors,” and this led to the request that the complaint should not be admitted. “The excessive and unjustified delay in the implementation of the whole criminal proceeding, the failure to gather the opportune and exhaustive evidence that was fundamental to elucidate the facts and identify the authors, the inaction of the prosecutors for long periods, as well as the notorious neglect and carelessness of the investigation constitutes an example of serious impunity.” 14. That, regarding the obligation to investigate in the context of the provisional measures, the representatives indicated that “the Court appears to have modified its wellestablished case law on this matter, without having recognized or explained clearly the reasoning behind this modification.” To explain this conclusion, the representatives referred to sections of the Order issued on November 25, 2008, in the Matter of Leonel Rivero et al. v. Mexico, in which the Court indicated that “the statement of the representatives that the criminal investigations should continue, or the alleged lack of information about them, do not constitute circumstances that merit maintaining the actual provisional measures” and that “the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and procedures relating to the facts that gave rise to these provisional measures would correspond to the examination of the merits of the case being processed by the Inter-American Commission.” 15. That, according to the representatives, “these considerations reflect a clear reversal of the case law more protective of human rights issued by the Court in the past, as can be inferred from an examination of previous Orders issued by the Court on the same issue.” They added that “the Court’s past case law reveals that it has repeatedly asked the States to investigate the facts that gave rise to the danger and to do everything necessary to adopt the provisional measure”; that this request addressed at the State in order to assess whether the danger subsists does not imply prejudgment of “the compatibility of the investigations with the obligations arising from the American Convention.” They observed that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigation made in the context of provisional measures is designed to determine “whether, as a result of the investigation, it can be concluded that the danger that gave rise to the measures no longer exists,” compared to the analysis that must be made during a litigation which “covers principally how the investigation has been conducted and not exclusively its results.” They also affirmed that “progress in the investigation into the facts that gave rise to the measures […] is the factor that most clearly allows the Court to assess the danger and conclude that it has decreased sufficiently to allow it to rescind the measures.” Lastly, they stated that “[b]y freeing the States from the obligation to provide information on the investigation into the facts that