B.2.2 The unauthenticated statements 42. On January 30, 2014, the representatives of the presumed victims forwarded the testimony required by affidavit. However, the statement of Victoria Landaeta and the expert opinions of Magaly Mercedes Vásquez González and Denotilia Hernández de Hernández, were signed only by the deponents, without the corresponding authentication. 43. In this regard, the representatives indicated that “Venezuelan notaries approached by the witnesses and the expert witnesses refused to certify the statements […] even though these had been requested by an Order of the President of the Court”; consequently, they had recourse to the Costa Rican Consulate in Caracas, Venezuela. However, Victoria Landaeta was unable to travel to Caracas to have her statement certified because, according to the medical certificate provided, she had been ordered to rest as she was 34 weeks pregnant. In addition, the representatives indicated that the Consul had to postpone the certification of the expert opinions of Magaly Mercedes Vásquez González and Denotilia Hernández de Hernández until January 31 or February 3, 2014. They therefore stated that they would try and certify the remaining expert opinions in the Consulate at the first possible moment. However, these were not forwarded to the Court. 44. The Court considers, as it has in other cases, 46 that the statements were presented within the stipulated time frame and that the failure to notarize them responded to an unjustified action by the State. Furthermore, regarding the statement of Victoria Landaeta, the Court takes into consideration that the stage of her pregnancy made it impossible for her to travel to the Costa Rican Consulate in Caracas, Venezuela. Consequently, the Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements made by Victoria Landaeta, Magaly Mercedes Vásquez González and Denotilia Hernández de Hernández. VI FACTS 45. In this chapter the Court will establish the facts of this case, based on the factual framework submitted to its consideration by the Commission, taking into account the body of evidence in the case, as well as the arguments of the representatives and the State. The facts will be described in the following sections: (1) the alleged problem of extrajudicial executions committed by police agents in Venezuela; (2) the threats received from police agents; (3) the death of Igmar Landaeta; (4) the arrest and death of Eduardo Landaeta, and (5) the investigations into the deaths of Igmar and Eduardo, both surnamed Landaeta Mejías. 46. First, it should be pointed out that, when the facts analyzed below commenced, Igmar Landaeta was 18 years of age and a third-year high school student; he worked in the same company as his father and lived in the Samán de Güere neighborhood with his mother, María Magdalena Mejías, and his permanent companion, Francy Parra, who was pregnant as a result of this relationship. Meanwhile, Eduardo Landaeta was 17 years of age, he worked in a tire repair shop and planned to enter the Navy. Their parents were María Magdalena Mejías and Ignacio Landaeta and their sisters were Victoria Landaeta, aged 5 years, and Leydis Landaeta, who was 10 months old. 46 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 14; Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 30, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 31. 14