later “they heard nothing more about the case.”89 Arianny Yosibel González’s statement was in the same sense, asserting that “they never received the hoped-for responses.”90 Belkis González stated, in relation to the investigation into the death of Olimpiades Gonzalez, that his family decided “not to bother anymore,” because “it did not have the economic resources to continue” and because “their hope for justice had died.”91 81. The State informed that it had been able to identify the person possibly responsible, but that person was at large. It did not present any information as to when that person fled. Venezuela maintained that the case remains open and that it was continuing “to take the actions that will lead to the arrest of the [presumed guilty person], such as the request on migratory movements and the request to the court handling the case to request the apprehension to the International Organization of Criminal Police (INTERPOL).” VII MERITS 82. This case involves the detentions and preventive deprivations of liberty suffered by members of the González family beginning in November 1998 in relation to criminal proceedings. It also involves certain aspects relating to the present conditions of those who were deprived of their liberty. In addition, the circumstances that the Court must examine involves an unsuccessful claim for compensation made by some of the alleged victims regarding their deprivation of liberty. The case also deals with the threat to the life of Olimpiades González and his death in 2006, as well as with the corresponding investigations. It can be demonstrated from the circumstances that the State violated the rights to personal liberty, to personal integrity, to life, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection. 83. In view of the information provided by the Commission and the alleged victims, the Court must observe that it lacks the anthropological-cultural information that would have allowed it to have a better sense of the context of the events that have been presented to it. Thus, it is not known whether both families in the conflict belonged to the same ethnic group and, if so, the eventual impact of the traditional guidelines of conflict resolution, as well as the possible effect of the urbanization on one or both families. In short, the Court regrets the lack of data that would have permitted it to frame the case in a more precise context. 84. The Court will now analyze the alleged violations with respect to: a) the rights to personal liberty, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, in relation to the initial detentions and preventive deprivations of liberty suffered by the alleged victims; b) the right to personal integrity, with respect to the deprivations of liberty; c) the right to judicial protection, in relation to the request for compensation, and d) the rights to life, to personal integrity and to judicial guarantees, with respect to the attacks on Olimpiades González after his release, his death and the investigation into his death. She added that she and her family members “totally [abandoned] their efforts for fear that what happened to their brother would happen to them.” (Written statement of María Angélica González before the Court, evidence file, fs. 2735 to 2740). 89 90 Written statement of Arianny Yosibel González González before the Court. 91 Written statement of Belkis Mirelis González González before the Court. 22