due process, that of “ensuring adequate participation by victims:” They added that “despite the precautionary measures granted by the C [ommission…,] Venezuela has not adequately implemented measures in favor of [Mrs.] Moreno and her son.” 140. Finally, they argued that, [t]he impunity [in the case] and lack of understanding of what happened [...] prevents both the victims as well as Venezuelan society from knowing who the perpetrators of the crime were, not only of the crime against Joe [Castillo], but of the whole context of violence that has seriously affected society. Accordingly, they stated that Venezuela violated “the right to know the truth to the detriment of the family members of Joe Luis Castillo and Venezuelan society, resulting in violations of Articles 1(1), 8, 25, and 13 of the American Convention.” 141. For its part, Venezuela expressed “concern” that the investigation was being assessed on the basis of “the guidelines of the Minnesota Protocol,” as though it involved “an obvious case of extrajudicial execution in which State agents were undoubtedly involved.” Nevertheless, it argued that “all the guidelines of the Protocol were followed completely, except for the identification and arraignment of the perpetrators before a Court [given the complexity of the case]”. It argued that it initiated the relevant investigations in this case “from the outset”, explaining that “[the] CICPC […] went to the crime scene to […] gather evidence and question eyewitnesses”, and that “a comprehensive investigation was carried out in which logical lines of inquiry were sufficiently developed; however, due to the complexity of the case, it was unable to identify those responsible.” 142. The State further argued that the “alleged paramilitary Emer Humberto Terán and the National Guard member Edgar Alfonso González, who was on leave” were not witnesses in the investigation, “they were only interviewed routinely by a police officer, without […]proceeding to make a formal, sworn and signed statement.” The State explained that “the content of everything said in an interview is investigated, and it cannot ipso facto be taken as [...] true.” It also considered that the information “presumably” provided is very general and [did] not provide specific and concrete data to establish a causal link between the circumstances of the death of Joe [Luis] Castillo and the involvement or collaboration of State agents. The only specific information is that [...] he was killed by paramilitary groups. The State explained that although Emer Humberto Terán and Edgar Alfonso Gonzalez “were arrested and brought before the Attorney General’s Office and the competent courts,” they were unable to “extract information” from them, by virtue of the guarantees of due process, established in Article 49 of the Venezuelan Constitution, which exempts a defendant from the obligation to testify against himself.83 143. The State added, in relation to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives concerning “lines of investigation” not explored before the case was archived, that ballistic tests were carried out, but that the “results were negative”. 144. As for the decision to suspend the investigation, the State explained that this was “not synonymous with closing the case [, since] according to Article 315 of the Procedural Code, the case may be reopened [a]t any time […] [provided that] the victim [so] requests 83 Article states that “[t]he defendant shall be informed of the constitutional principle that exempts him from the obligation to testify against himself, even when he consents to make a statement, not to do so under oath.” 36