and their father Octavio Díaz Álvarez. Specifically, the petitioners contended that on April 10, 2003, members of the state police attempted to enter the residence of Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto and his wife Alexandra Gualdron. On April 26, 2003, members of the state police allegedly assaulted and threatened Mrs. Dinorah María Díaz Loreto and Mrs. Alexandra Gualdron, and Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto. It is claimed that Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto and his 12 year-old nephew Rafael Acopio Díaz were also threatened, and Miguel Angel was illegally deprived of his liberty. It is argued that during the detention, Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto received threats against his family and was beaten by the police agents. Lastly, it is contended that on June 4, 2003, Mr. Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto was held by police officers on a public roadway, and on July 4 that year, Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto was illegally and arbitrarily arrested by police officers. Regarding his detention, the petitioners alleged that he was not permitted to get in touch with his family or with his trusted attorney. 104. As to these incidents, the State reported that the Office of the 20th Prosecutor of the Ministry of Public Prosecution was assigned to investigate the complaints of illegal and arbitrary detention and bodily harm by law enforcement officers, and a summons was issued through the CICPC for the victims to appear to provide statements before the Office of the Prosecutor. The Commission also notes the points established in the proven facts section, on the information provided by the petitioners, and not refuted by the State, regarding the complaints filed by the Díaz Loreto family about their security situation and that it is alleged that these complaints were not properly addressed by the Ministry of Public Prosecution. 105. The Commission finds that in light of the information available in the case file at the time of the approval of the instant decision, it does not have enough evidence to be able to rule on these allegations as autonomous potential violations of the American Convention. Notwithstanding, the IACHR will take into account these allegations and the response thereto offered by the State as part of the analysis of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection done next. 106. In cases of violent deaths and injuries the Inter-American Commission and Court have held that States are obligated under Article 8 (fair trial) and Article 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention to conduct an ex officio, prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation, as an essential element and requirement for the protection of the rights affected in such situations.110 In light of Article 1.1 of the American Convention, this duty obliges the State to provide a prompt and simple recourse so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered.111 107. In cases of deaths, which may have been the consequence of the use of deadly force by state agents, the European Court has held that the “most careful scrutiny” must be used, taking into consideration not “only the actions of the State agents who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination.”112 Thus, “any deficiency in the investigation, which undermines the ability thereof to establish the cause of death or the person responsible, will put compliance with this norm at risk.”113 108. The Commission shall evaluate whether in domestic proceedings the Venezuelan State provided the victims effective judicial remedies that are in keeping with the guarantees of due process as regards the death of three victims by police officers. This analysis will be conducted with respect to two points: (i) due diligence; and (ii) the reasonable timeframe. 1. Due diligence in the investigation 110 IACHR, Report No. 85/13, Case 12.251, Admissibility and Merits. Vereda la Esperanza, Colombia, November 4, 2013, para. 242; IA Court of HR. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, par. 75. 111 IA Court of HR., Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par. 169; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1. par. 91. 112 ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. No. 27229/95, September 1995, § 36. 113 ECHR, Milkhalkova and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 10919/05, 13 January 2011, § 42. 26