3 Caracazo and of the recent publication of the report [of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights] about ‘Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela.’” They added that due to “[the] declarations the way is open so that COFAVIC can be the victim of actions against it, like for example, a raid or search of its headquarters or the formulation of accusations for the crime of obstruction of justice against the Board of Directors of COFAVIC, although no legal motives exist for it.” b) the fact that the Public Ministry affirms that the next of kin of the victims do not collaborate with the clarification of the facts “reveals once more the multiple mechanisms of impunity that prevail in this case, [… as well as] a policy of the State that criminalizes and harasses the defenders of human rights used including their organs of judicial investigation;” c) that aforementioned “may generate in some sectors of the population manifestations of hostility toward the labor that this organization is […] fulfilling;” d) COFAVIC represents in total, 14 of the next of kin of the victims connected with the graves of the La Peste sector of the General South Cemetery, who have been submitted recently to questioning that is “re-victimizing by the employees of the Public Ministry,” and e) regarding the affirmations of the lack of collaboration with the Public Ministry, “COFAVIC has sent the information pre-mortem that it has of the victims in various occasions to the Public Ministry, to the Institute of Legal Medicine and to the Tribunals that heard the case,” and that “the Inter-American Court sent all this information to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Venezuela on July 5, 1999.” 4. The communication of the Secretary of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretary”) on March 9, 2010, through which, following the instructions of the President of the Court, granted a time period to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and to the State until March 17, 2010, to present their observations to the request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen 1). Through said communication of the Secretary of the Court of March 19, 2010, at the request of the Commission, it granted an extension for the presentation of the observations. Also, through communication of the Secretary of March 25, 2010, it reiterated to the State of the requirement to present its observations. 5. The brief of March 23, 2010, by which the Inter-American Commission sent its observations and signaled, inter alia, that: a) signaled its profound preoccupation for the manifestations informed of by the representatives which reflect the lack of advances by the State in the clarification of the responsibility for the violations committed. In this sense, they signaled that the case of Caracazo is under the competence of the organs of the system since the year 1995, when the Commission began the processing of the case, and that the Court has been supervising the fulfillment of that ordered in the judgments of the merits and reparations of 1999 and 2002; b) the information provided exemplifies the “closed attitude” to which some of the victims and their representatives are submitted in the framework of the process of exhumation and identification of the remains and bones of their next of kin, which is the objective of the supervision of compliance with judgment; that the State tries to impose