parties. Among other aspects, the COFAVIC report identifies the characteristics, the population affected, and the modus operandi of “para-police groups” in Venezuela, and also analyzes the actions of these groups in the states of Anzoátegui, Falcón, Portuguesa and Yaracuy. 43. In addition, in several of its annual reports from 2001 to 2008, the Ombudsman’s Office emphasized the existence of a modus operandi in which: (a) extrajudicial executions “were preceded by threats”; (b) “the victims were clearly determined”; (c) “the perpetrators possessed significant logistics (weapons, vehicles) and had a specific organization involving […] active or retired municipal, regional or State police agents”;31 (d) witnesses and next of kin of the victims were threatened or harassed,32 and (e) very few of such cases are prosecuted.33 Moreover, according to the reports of the Ombudsman’s Office, 392 extrajudicial executions were reported in Venezuela in 2002, 379 in 2003, 155 in 2006, and 134 in 2008.34 In addition, the 2006 Annual Report of this office highlighted, among the factors that explain the reduction in the number of extrajudicial executions, “the unequivocal condemnation that has been expressed at the highest level with regard to this type of conduct […]; the deterrent effect of the measures taken to punish law enforcement agents who commit abusive acts […], and the increase in the training programs on human rights for the security agencies.”35 44. The Court observes that the evidence provided is insufficient to permit the Court to rule on the existence of the alleged context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela or in Aragua state. Moreover, regarding the alleged context in relation to the Barrios family, the Court will examine this opportunely, after considering the facts of the case and the evidence available. C. General considerations of the Court 45. The Court has established that, according to Article 1(1) of the Convention, States are obliged to respect and guarantee the human rights established therein. The State’s international responsibility arises from acts or omissions of any of its powers or organs, irrespective of their hierarchy, that violate the American Convention.36 46. Regarding the obligation to respect rights, the Court has held that, pursuant to this article, the first obligation assumed by States Parties is “to respect the rights and freedoms” 31 Cf. Report of the Ombudsman’s Office, 2002 Annual Report (file of attachments to the representatives’ final written arguments, tome I, attachment 3, folio 7734). See also Report of the Ombudsman’s Office, 2006 Annual Report (file of attachments to the representatives’ final written arguments, tome II, attachment 6, folio 7889). 32 Cf. Report of the Ombudsman’s Office, 2003 Annual Report (file of attachments to the representatives’ final written arguments, tome I, attachment 4, folio 7794), and Report of the Ombudsman’s Office, 2006 Annual Report, supra note 31, folio 7889. 33 Cf. Report of the Ombudsman’s Office, 2003 Annual Report, supra note 32, folio 7802. 34 File of attachments to the representatives’ final written arguments, tome I and II, attachments 4, 5 and 6, folios 7792, 7888 and 8100. 35 Cf. Report of the Ombudsman’s Office, 2006 Annual Report, supra note 31, folio 7888. 36 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 234. 19