the representatives also pointed out that, on October 5, 2004, the Chamber held the request inadmissible since the appellants did not indicate the alleged confusion or lack of precision of the mentioned norms “that implies a reasonable doubt on their interpretation or origin.” E) Olimpiades González 71. On September 19, 2001, Olimpiades González was the victim of an attempt on his life. The Commission and the representatives indicated that, when Mr. González was on his way to the Office of the Prosecutor to request a response to his compensation claim, an unidentified person shot at him three times. They added that Mr. González denounced what occurred to the Office of the Prosecutor and requested that he be granted protective measures. 72. On November 26, 2001, the Fifth Tribunal of Control of the Criminal Justice Circuit of Zulia ordered police protection for Olimpiades González for two months. The State, while the case was before the Inter-American Commission, indicated that this measure was implemented by police rounds near his home.80 The representatives maintained, however, that the policemen did not comply with the hours assigned for the rounds. 73. On December 14, 2001, Olimpiades González requested that the Fifth Tribunal of Control extend the protective measure and reported that the police were not complying with the assigned rounds. On January 15, 2002, the Tribunal held a public hearing in which Mr. González manifested that the police rounds did not comply with what had been established and that one of the policemen threatened to arrest him if he complained. At the same hearing, the policeman in charge of the protection of Mr. González testified that it was not possible to use 12 policemen to protect one person. He added that “the police function is not to maintain a special vigilance for one person” since “the work of the police is not that of a bodyguard.”81 74. The State, before the Commission, pointed out that, on June 13, 2002, the Public Ministry “decided” to close the investigation, since it could not identify the perpetrator of the incident.82 75. On July 12, 2002, the Eleventh Court of Control of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Zulia denied the request of Mr. González to extend the protective measure, because the judicial decision of November 2001 (supra para. 72) established that the protective Communications of the “petitioning party” and of the State of January 22, 2004 and February 17, 2015, respectively (evidence file, Annex 15 of the Merits Report, fs. 330 to 336 and 337 to 344, respectively). With regard to the adoption of protective measures, the Court noted that the expert María Lucrecia Hernández Vitar pointed out that it was contemplated among the “rights of the victim” in the COPP, published in the Official Gazette of January 23, 1998, and that later the Law on the Protection of Victim Witnesses and other Procedural Persons, promulgated on October 6, 2006, was also contemplated; in the Organic Law of the Public Ministry, published on March 19, 2007, as well as “in more specific terms” in other legislation: “Organic Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescente of 1998 amended in 2006 and the Organic Law on the Right of Women to a Life Free of Violence of 2007 with its last modification in 2014.” The expert also referred to the Organic Law of the National Police and the Police Service and considered that there “exists a broad normative framework that governs protective measures.” (Cf. Written expert opinion of María Lucrecia Hernández Vitar (evidence file, fs. 2714 to 2723.) 80 Cf. Minutes of the hearing of the Fifth Control Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Zuliz of January 15, 2002 (evidence file, Annex 16.1 of the Merits Report, fs. 346 and 347). 81 82 Cf. Communication of the State of February 17, 2015. 20