173. The State claimed that the protective measure ordered in favor of Olimpiades
Gonzalez was effective while it was in force, which guaranteed his personal integrity. It
added that the death of Mr. González occurred when those measures were no longer in
force and five years after the event that originated the order. In addition, it denied that
there was “a causal relation” between the attempt against Mr. González in 2001 and that
in 2006, which ended in his death. Therefore, it maintained that there was no violation,
on the part of the State, to his rights of personal integrity and to life.
174. Venezuela added that there was no violation to the right to life for the failure to
investigate. It claimed that it initiated an investigation immediately after the death of
Olimpiades González, that it took diverse steps and that it identified the person who
might be responsible and ordered his arrest. It asserted that the process had been
paralyzed because of the “failure to appear” of the alleged perpetrator. It reminded that
there is no trial in absentia in Venezuela. It stressed that the Public Ministry continues
to take steps to arrest the accused “such as the request of migratory movements and
that before the trial court to request the arrest before the International Organization of
Criminal Police (INTERPOL).”
175. The State also denied its responsibility with respect to the alleged harm to the
personal integrity of the family members of Olimpiades González in relation to his death
and the later actions. It argued that a) there was no indication of a violation of the
personal integrity of the family members of Olimpiades González, and b) there being no
violation of the right to his life, it cannot be said that there was a violation of the personal
integrity of his family members.
B) Considerations of the Court
176. The Court notes that the parties presented arguments on the investigation into
the death of Olimpiades González related to his right to life. The Court believes it
pertinent to examine those allegations with respect to judicial guarantees. Therefore, it
will first analyze the rights to personal integrity and to life with respect to Mr. González,
considering the arguments concerning the attempt on his life in 2001, his situation of
risk, the measures adopted in that respect and the circumstances of his death. It will
then examine the right to judicial guarantees, in relation to the investigation into his
death. Finally, it will refer to the allegations on the harm to the personal integrity of
family members of Mr. González.
B.1 Right to life and to personal integrity
177. Following the Court’s case law on activities to prevent violations to the right to
life or to personal integrity in order to establish State responsibility for not complying
with that duty in a specific case, the following must be verified: i) that the State
authorities knew, or should have known, of the existence of a real or immediate risk to
the life and/or personal integrity of an individual or of a group of individuals and ii) that
those authorities did not adopt the necessary measures within the scope of their
violation. Nonetheless, as was pointed out, the Court can analyze arguments of law presented by the
representatives that are distinct from those presented by the Commission, provided that they are based on
the factual framework of the case (supra para. 147).
44