authorities” regarding the death of his brother and of other people in the same context. 171. In this regard, the Commission considered that the first measure of protection is to prevent the application of criminal law against those who have simply made such allegations, and stated that the State violated the rights enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. It also held that Article 444 of the Venezuelan Criminal Code which codifies the crime of aggravated slander, violated the victim’s right to freedom of thought and expression and the principle of legality and retroactivity, in relation to the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) and the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions contained in Article 2 of the Convention. 172. The representatives added that in response to these allegations, police officers subjected Luis Enrique Uzcátegui to numerous acts of harassment, arrests, persecutions, illegal raids of his home, and physical and verbal abuse, from 2001 until 2008, and that the arbitrary arrests that occurred on November 14, 2002 and January 25, 2003, violated his right to freedom of expression, had an intimidating effect on him and constituted a physical impediment to the exercise of that right. They said that the intimidation used against Mr. Uzcátegui due to the complaints he filed have not stopped and have not been effectively investigated by the State and that they regard the lack of investigation and the acquittal of several defendants as “a serious aggravating factor to the insecurity and the violation of the right to freedom of expression, given that, in the absence of any punishment of those responsible for the assaults, not even at the administrative level, the officers involved are still active in the police force, which produces a threatening effect directly on the victim, and indirectly on others who intend to report violations similar to those fought against by Luis Enrique Uzcátegui.” 173. The State argued that the criminal complaint filed by the Commander General of the Armed Police Forces against Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, is justified. It pointed out that Luis Enrique Uzcátegui exercised his freedom of expression and, given that he attributed certain actions or facts to a specific citizen, the latter had the right to demand accountability for what is said. It also indicated that the purpose of this complaint was not to scare Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, or to intimidate or silence him, given that ever since the complaint was filed, and up until the ruling, Mr. Uzcátegui continued to carry out human rights activities and inform the press. Furthermore, it argued that during the time that the complaint was being processed, the citizen Luis Enrique Uzcátegui did not attend the settlement hearing. In its final arguments, the State argued that in the case of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, the petitioner’s idea was not to silence him for damage to his reputation, but to seek truth regarding the facts without endangering the reputation of all police officers of the State Falcón; that the right to freedom of expression implies responsibility for what is said, which may be of a criminal nature, and that the Commission has ignored the exceptions contemplated in Article 13(2) of the Convention; and that although Article 444 of the Criminal Code provides for a prison sentence of one to three years, in such cases the conditional suspension of the execution of the sentence is appropriate, so that the punitive nature of the sentence is mainly compensatory. A.5. Alleged violation of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] of the relatives of Néstor and Luis Enrique Uzcátegui 174. The Inter-American Commission held that the State violated, to the detriment of Néstor José Uzcátegui’s relatives, the right to fair trial [judicial guarantees] and access to an effective remedy, given the failure to carry out a proper investigation within a reasonable period regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of 43