f) The victims were shot numerous times37 and there were signs that acts of torture had been perpetrated against one of them (the case of Robert Díaz Loreto), and g) The family members were threatened and harassed by police officers after reporting the events.38 28. Essentially, all these facts of the case conform to the systematic pattern and “the context” of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela at the time at which the deaths of the victims occurred. Here, it is important to stress, as the judgment does, that “there does not have to be an absolute concordance between the different element of the contexts and the facts of the case for them to be taken into account when analyzing a specific case. A case-by-case assessment should be made concerning the extent to which those patterns or contexts may be used as indications, presumptions or circumstantial evidence together with the rest of the body of evidence.”39 29. This conformity between the facts of the case and the context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela was recognized by the expert witness proposed by the State itself to provide an opinion during the hearing who acknowledged that this case was one of those that could be situated within the general problem of abuse of police authority and extrajudicial executions.40 30. In addition, the IACtHR referred explicitly to other indications and presumptions which analyzed together with the context of the case, in our opinion, clearly infer that an extrajudicial execution took place. These included: a) The testimony of several family members and neighbors contested the State’s version of the supposed “confrontation”;41 b) The unexplained delay of the police patrol car that took Robert Díaz Loreto, who was wounded, to the medical center to be attended;42 c) The presence of “sewage” in Robert Díaz Loreto’s digestive system and respiratory tract was not explained;43 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, paras. 76 and 79. 37 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, paras. 122 to 129. 38 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 68. 39 Cf. Statement by Sara del Carmen Mier y Terán Ojera during the public hearing in the case; she acknowledge this fact on being questioned on this point by a judge of the IACtHR. 40 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, paras. 39, 40 and 77. 41 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 81. In this regard, the IACtHR indicated that it was unclear how long the police patrol car took to reach the Corinsa Social Security facility so that Robert Díaz Loreto could receive attention, because it was indicated that Robert Díaz Loreto’s body was left off at the facility at 7.30 p.m. and that he had been shot between 6 and 6.30 p.m. at a location that was a 15-minute drive at the most from the medical center. The IACtHR added that, based on this timeline, Mr. Díaz Loreto should have arrived between 6.15 and 6.45 p.m. at the latest, especially considering that he was being transported in a police patrol car that was able to drive much faster than a private vehicle. None of Venezuela’s domestic authorities examined this discrepancy in the times and, during the processing of this case, neither did the State offer any kind of explanation in relation to that delay or the inconsistencies in the timelines. Furthermore, it should be recalled that some statements by family members and neighbors mention that they had seen the police vehicle patrolling the neighborhood with Robert Díaz Loreto inside instead of taking him directly to a medical center. 42 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 82. 43 8