I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On July 26, 2010, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of the Barrios family against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela”). The case originated from two petitions presented on March 16, 2004, and December 30, 2005, by Eloisa Barrios, Luis Aguilera, as Director of the Human Rights Commission for Justice and Peace of Aragua state, and the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “Justice and Peace Commission” or “Aragua Commission” and “CEJIL,” respectively). On February 25, 2005, the Commission adopted Report on Admissibility No. 23/05 regarding the petition of March 16, 2004,2 and on January 17, 2009, Report on Admissibility No. 01/09 regarding the petition of December 30, 2005.3 Subsequently, on January 7, 2010, the Commission joindered the processing of both cases, and on March 16, 2010, it approved Report on Merits No. 11/10 (hereinafter “the Merits Report”) under Article 50 of the Convention. In this report, it made a series of recommendations to the State.4 Venezuela was notified of the report on April 26, 2010, and granted two months to provide information on compliance with the recommendations. In view of the State’s failure to present any information, the Commission decided to submit this case to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Commission appointed Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner, and its Executive Secretary, Santiago A. Canton, as delegates, and its Deputy Executive Secretary, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, lawyer of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. 2. As indicated by the Inter-American Commission, this case refers to the alleged international responsibility of the State for the “need to obtain justice of the Barrios family, which has [allegedly] been subjected to grave harassment by the Police of Aragua state […]. As part of this persecution, five members of the Barrios family have lost their life and several of them have been detained and subjected to illegal and arbitrary searches of their homes, suffered threats against their life and personal integrity, and been forced to move from their place of residence.” The Commission also indicated that the alleged human rights violations also affected children, and they remain in impunity. In addition, it underlined that the facts of this case “were part of a more general context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela.” It also stressed that “most of the incidents that violated the life and personal integrity of the [alleged] victims took place after the organs of the inter-American system had requested protection for the Barrios family by the mechanisms of precautionary measures or provisional measures.” Nevertheless, it indicated that the State had not implemented effective measures of protection, so that “the Barrios family is still in the situation of risk and lack of protection that promoted the [alleged] human rights violations against them.” 2 In Report on Admissibility No. 23/05, the Commission declared petition No. 204/04 admissible with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 1, 4, 5, 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention (file of the processing of the case before the Inter-American Commission, appendix I, folios 292 and 303). 3 In Report on Admissibility No. 01/09, the Commission declared petition No. 1491/05 admissible with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), 8(1), 19, 22(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument (file on the processing of the case before the Inter-American Commission, appendix I, folios 965 and 980). 4 In Report on Merits No. 11/10, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), 8(1), 11, 19, 21, 22(1) and 25, to the detriment of the alleged victims indicated in the said Report (merits file, tome I, folios 5 to 87). 5