violation of the right to personal integrity contained in Article 5(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Robert Díaz Loreto. 94. In addition, this Court has already referred to the inconsistencies in the calculation of the time it would have taken the police patrol car to reach the Corinsa Social Security clinic, and the State did not provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation (supra para. 81). During that time, which was at least 45 minutes more than the time required to drive from the scene of the incident to the health center, Robert Díaz Loreto was in police custody. Therefore, the Court finds that the State is responsible for violating the right to personal liberty contained in Article 7 of the American Convention to the detriment of Robert Diaz Loreto. 95. Consequently, the State is responsible for a violation of the right to personal integrity contained in Article 5(1) of the American Convention and the right to personal liberty contained in Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Robert Díaz Loreto. B.3. Obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions 96. The Court has indicated that States must create an adequate legislative framework that dissuades any threat to the right to life. Consequently, domestic laws must establish parameters that are sufficiently clear concerning the use of lethal force and firearms by state agents.119 In the instant case, it has been verified that the Venezuelan State has had a Code of Conduct for Members of the Police Forces since October 14, 1993. 120 The regulations expressly include the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The representatives failed to explain how these regulations did not comply with the international standards in force at the time of the facts of this case. 97. Consequently, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to rule on the State’s responsibility for a violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions contained in Article 2 of the American Convention. VII.2. RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION (ARTICLES 1(1), 8(1) AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 98. The Commission indicated that: (a) the measures undertaken to investigate the deaths of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez were neither adequate nor sufficient to satisfy the State’s obligation to conduct an exhaustive and diligent investigation; (b) the case file of the initial investigation before the CICPC reveals that the basic assumption used was the version of the confrontations; (c) in view of the existence of two versions, the competent authorities failed to address both lines of investigation seriously and impartially, or to require all the necessary and relevant evidence to elucidate the facts; (d) there is no record that they followed up on a line of investigation related to the possible connection of the facts to the context of extrajudicial executions in Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela, para. 75, and Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series C No. 327, para. 136. 119 Cf. Regulations for the Coordination of Police Services and Code of Conduct for Members of the Police Forces, Official Gazette, No. 35,317 of October 14, 1993 (evidence file, folios 6372 to 6403). 120 -30-