According to this version, the operation had continued to try and capture the two individuals who had fled and who escaped in a car. Statements indicated that one of them fired his gun through the car window at the police detail that was pursuing them until the officers were able to hit the back tire of the vehicle. At that time, the driver of the car had been able to get out of the vehicle, while the two passengers again offered armed resistance. As a result, they were severely wounded and therefore taken to the nearest hospital where they were pronounced dead on arrival. Moreover, according to this version, following this incident, two firearms had been found near the place where the events took place, which allegedly corresponded to those used in the confrontation. This version is revealed by the police records and interviews with CSOPEA officials and witnesses, and ballistic and forensic evidence (supra para. 41). a) The context 66. Both the Commission and the representatives recalled that, at the time these events took place, a context of extrajudicial executions by police officers existed in Venezuela and, in particular, in Aragua state (supra para. 29). Thus, as indicated in the 2003 Ombudsman’s Report that context could be identified by “certain patterns of police conduct” with the following characteristics: (a) the official version of the police forces generally referred to the death of the victims during an alleged confrontation; (b) generally, the victims were intercepted and killed in or near their homes, or during police operations or raids; (c) the incident occurred in the presence of witnesses who state that the victim was alive when arrested; (d) in numerous cases, the victims are injured when placed in vehicles; (e) in many cases, among other matters, the scene where the execution took place is altered, the victim is taken to a different place from where the incident occurred, and weapons and psychotropic substances are planted; (f) balaclava helmets are used to hide the identity of the officers and, in some cases, vehicles without license plates or taxis are used for official patrols and individuals subsequently appear dead in the hospital or the morgue; (g) in most cases the victims have been shot numerous times while, in some cases, there are evident signs of torture, and (h) the family members and witnesses are generally threatened and harassed by the police after reporting the facts.76 As mentioned, the State has not contested the existence of this contextual framework, but indicated that this case does not comply with several of its characteristic elements (supra para. 55). 67. In this regard, it is worth recalling, first, that despite the foregoing and the general situation that might exist in that region and in others in Venezuela, it is not sufficient that, in the region, there is a general situation or context of violations of human rights by state officials in order to prove State responsibility for breaching the obligation to ensure rights in relation to the actions of its agents. It is also necessary that the State’s obligation to respect rights has been violated in the particular circumstances of the specific case.77 68. In this regard, or private individuals each case.78 Also, as which the context of the Court recalls that a State’s responsibility for the acts of state agents must be determined based on the particularities and circumstances of regards the circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions on human rights violations similar to those present in the case is based, Cf. Report of the Ombudsman, 2003 (evidence file, folios 184-bis-59 and 184-bis-60). See also, Opinion provided by expert witness Lisandro Raúl Cubas during the public hearing of this case on January 31, 2019. 76 Cf. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325, para. 180, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 148. 77 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 113, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 150. 78 -22-