34 disappearance of human rights in general. Second, by subsequent denial of abuse and the existence of common graves. Resistance of the State to undertake its responsibility did not allow an investigation to take place at a stage in which it was essential to gather evidence and clarify the events. This led to irregular burials conducted in a clandestine manner. Furthermore, the preliminary criminal investigation was secret, as set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force. Steps taken to identify and attain the return of the buried corpses were unsuccessful, as only three of the 68 bodies found have been identified with support by Argentinean anthropologists. Subsequently, the process of identification was paralyzed. The last identification announced by the Government Prosecutor’s Office refers to three corpses, but independent experts were not asked to participate. During the evidence gathering stage, the State has withheld evidence. After the entry into force of the Organic Criminal Procedure Code that eliminates the secret preliminary investigative phase called “sumario”, full access by the next of kin of the victims or their representatives to all records has not been ensured. To conduct a serious and complete investigation of the facts, it was necessary for the Executive to conduct an administrative or internal investigation of what happened so as to establish the origin of the orders that led to the summary executions. No criminal or administrative responsibility has so far been established in any of the cases, whether pertaining to the facts that led to violation of human rights or to subsequent complaints with respect to acts by judges and prosecutors. The decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, in response to a request by the Attorney General, to hear the cases in connection with the facts of the case regarding alleged human rights violations, has only enabled ordering of the cases pending, but it has not yielded any tangible results. Currently, the files are in the hands of the Government Prosecutor’s Office. The expert witness believes that acts of the legal bodies have caused a grave denial of justice. With respect to the legal framework in force in Venezuela, the expert witness pointed out that the 1999 Constitution included in the constitutional order the main obligations derived from adoption of international human rights treaties. As an expression of guarantees of such rights, it established the obligation to investigate the crimes stated therein, and to punish those responsible as well as to ensure comprehensive reparation to the victims or their assignees. Nevertheless, the State has not fully complied with those obligations. The Code of Criminal Procedure in force in 1989 set forth an inquisitive criminal procedure, lacking minimum due process guarantees. This has led the executive authorities to handle the development and outcome of criminal proceedings with excessively discretionary power, due to the secret nature, even with respect to the detainee and his or her attorney, of the charges during the preliminary investigative stage and absolute police control over the pre-trial proceedings during that stage. The Military Justice Code allowed the