6. On June 20, 2006, the Commission received arguments on the merits from the State, which were sent to the petitioners on July 5, 2006, with a request to present their observations. On August 11, 2006, the petitioners asked the Commission for a one-month extension, which was granted. On September 19, 2006, the petitioners submitted their observations, which were forwarded to the State on September 27, 2006. The State’s observations were received on April 18, 2007, and forwarded to the petitioners. 7. On July 5, 2007, the Commission notified the parties that petition 1491-05 had been separated from case 12.488 (Eloisa Barrios et al.). On September 5, 2007, the State submitted its observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners on September 19, 2007. On the same date the petitioners presented additional information that was forwarded to the State for its observations on September 24, 2007. The State submitted its final observations on October 24, 2007, which were transmitted to the petitioners. On November 14, 2007, the petitioners presented their observations, which were forwarded to the State on November 19, giving it one month to comment. Those observations were not received. III. CONTEXT 8. The facts alleged in this petition are related to those of Case 12.488 Eloísa Barrios et al., which is now in the merits stage. Case 12.448 involves the deaths of Narciso and Luis Barrios and a series of house searches and acts of harassment against members of the Barrios family. The Commission found that case2 admissible as regards allegations of possible violations of Articles 1, 4, 5, 8, 21, and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of Narciso,3 Eloísa, Elvira, Justina, Luis, and Oneida Barrios, and Benito Barrios’ family members. In addition, the Commission granted precautionary measures for members of the Barrios family4 and as of the date of this report’s approval, they are beneficiaries of provisional measures5 granted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 9. By way of context for this case, the petitioners alleged it is in the framework of a recognized practice of extrajudicial executions and excessive and indiscriminate use of force by regional police, which has been going on for years. They contended that victims of this practice are generally young men in the economically disadvantaged social sectors,6 and that Aragua is particularly notorious for the greatest number of “executions” by police agents, especially by the Cuerpo de Seguridad y Orden Público [Security and Public Order Corps] (hereinafter “the CSOP”), which constitutes a pattern of extrajudicial executions.7 2 See IACHR, Report Nº 23/05, Narciso Barrios et al. v. Venezuela, Petition 204-04, of February 25, 2005. 3 Narciso Barrios was assassinated on December 11, 2003. 4 The IACHR granted precautionary measures on June 22, 2004 to protect the life and humane treatment of Eloisa Barrios and her family. 5 On September 24, 2004, the Inter-American Court ordered provisional measures to protect the life and physical integrity of Eloisa, Inés, Beatriz, Jorge (15), Rigoberto, Oscar, Néstor Caudi, and Juan Barrios, Carolina García, and Pablo Solórzano. The measures were ordered after the death of Luis Barrios, (who demanded investigations into the death of Narciso Barrios) on September 20, 2004. Rigoberto Barrios (15) died on January 26, 2005, as result of an attack in which he received eight bullet wounds on January 9, 2005. 6 The petitioners cite PROVEA’s annual report on the human rights situation in Venezuela, October 2004-September 2005, chapter on the right to life. Original petition received on December 30, 2005, p. 3. 7 The petitioners cite PROVEA’s annual report on the human rights situation in Venezuela, October 2002-September 2003, p. 304. According to the petitioners, the modus operandi of this pattern typically includes: i) presentation of the facts as a shootout, which in most cases includes alteration of the crime scene and transfer of the wounded or dead victim to public hospitals without details of what happened; ii) the use of uniforms and/or official arms and equipment including vehicles; iii) the public discrediting of or criminal accusations against the victim, alleging that the individual resisted arrest or has a criminal background; iv) the intimidation, threatening, and even assassination of the eyewitnesses and the victim’s family members; and v) the lack of clarification of the facts and their total impunity. Original petition received on December 30, 2005, p. 3. 2