responsibility.”427 Furthermore, Venezuelan law has established the obligation of the Police to be accountable and, to implement this obligation, a system has been created of periodic and special reports on police activities.428 Based on the foregoing, in this case, the Court does not find it necessary to order an additional measure of reparation in this regard. ii) Adaptation of the law on the protection of victims and witnesses 347. The representatives asked that the Court order the State to adapt the law on the protection of victims and witnesses to the relevant international standards. They argued that, “[e]ven though Venezuelan law establishes the procedures that should exist for the protection of witnesses, in practice, the said norm has become ineffectual.” 348. The Court observes that the representatives did not provide sufficient elements to indicate that the shortcomings they attribute to the protection of the members of the Barrios family arose from a problem related to the law on victims and witnesses. On this basis, the Court does not order the requested measure of reparation. iii) Identification of the source of danger 349. The Commission asked that the Court order the State “to adopt all necessary measures to identify the source of the danger experienced by the Barrios family and to make every effort to eradicate it.” 350. The representatives asked that the Court order the State “to implement the measures of protection granted in favor of the members of the Barrios family that are in force in order to safeguard their life and integrity.” 351. The Court has already ordered the investigation of the facts of the instant case that constitute violations of different rights under the American Convention (supra para. 322). In addition, the Court recalls that the State must comply with the obligations derived from the provisional measures ordered in the context of this case, which include, in addition to the protection of the beneficiaries, the investigation of the facts that gave rise to the protection measures. iv) Creation of an accessible public record of detainees 352. The representatives asked that the Court order the State to create a public record of detainees in all the places where those who are accused of an offense are detained, which documents the chain of custody of the detainee from the moment of the arrest, specifying the time, place and circumstances of the arrest, the place to which the person detained will be taken and the probable time of arrival there, the procedural status of the detainee, the names of the individuals who at each moment are responsible for immediate physical custody, the names of the individuals who are responsible for the legal custody of the detainee, and the name of the public servant in charge of the investigation. 353. The Court observes that the laws and regulations submitted by expert witness Rosario Salas include the “Manual of Norms and Procedures for Guaranteeing the Rights of the Detainee,” which stipulates detention procedure in Venezuela, stating that an official 427 “Manual on Progressive and Differentiated Use of Force by the Police”, supra note 418, folios 1702 and 1703. 428 Cf. “Regulations for the accountability of Police Forces in their different territorial political spheres”, articles 5 to 10 (merits file, tome IV, folio 1657). In addition, cf. “Accountability Guidelines” (merits file, tome IV, folio 1637). 106