4 Articles 284 and 288 of COPP6 establish this right to compensation. In this regard, they allege that on May 24, 2001, they requested compensation, reparations and restitution for their deprivation of liberty from the Second Judge. They indicate that this request was admitted and the State was ordered to pay compensation in the amount of 46,170,012 Bolivars to the four alleged victims through the Republic's Attorney General's Office (hereinafter the "FGR"). On August 28, 2001, they filed a written complaint against this amount before the Second Judge, which was processed as a reconsideration appeal and declared inadmissible on September 6, 2001. 17. Besides the above, the petitioners allege that on September 19, 2001, Olimpíades Gonzáles was the victim of an attempt on his life with three shots from persons unknown when he was travelling to the Public Prosecutor's Office to request a response to the compensation claim. They stress that as a result, he requested judicial protection, and this was granted by the State of Zulia Enforcement Court. It was not implemented however, and subsequently the case file relating to the protection was archived. 18. They allege that on October 17, 2001, they requested from the Second Judge enforcement of the compensation decision, a request that was answered on October 30, 2001 to the effect that the decision was not yet final since, given the irreparable encumbrance on the State, it should have been expressly notified to the FGR. They indicate that after this notification, on October 29, 2001, the FGR lodged an appeal. The appeal was decided on November 26, 2001 by Chamber No.3 of the Court of Appeals, which declared it well-founded and annulled the contested decision, based on the fact that the preventive detention had been legal under the Code of Criminal Prosecution (hereinafter the "CEC") - in force at the time of the detention - under which the required prerequisite had been fulfilled, i.e.: the existence of indicia suggesting that the accused had committed typical and illegal conduct. 19. The petitioners point out that they filed a cassation appeal against this decision, which was declared inadmissible on June 13, 2003, since it did not concern an appealable decision during the said appeal. They indicate that on May 29, 2003, they filed a complaint for reconsideration before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which declared it groundless on July 30, 2003. Additionally, on January 21, 2004, they had lodged an interpretative appeal on a point of law, which was declared inadmissible on October 5, 2005, by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 20. As legal arguments, the petitioners alleged that despite the deprivation of liberty taking place in accordance with the CEC in force at the time, the said detention violated Article 7 of the American Convention, since personal freedom must be the "guarantee rule of the same process" 6 The petitioners cite Article 284 of COPP: "Compensation. When, due to a reconsideration of a judgment, the accused is acquitted, he shall be compensated by reason of the time spent in detention. The fine, or the excess, shall be remitted, with the monetary punishment given, according to the corresponding instructions of the Central Bank of Venezuela." Art. 285: “Determination. The Court herewith ordering the revision on which compensation is based, shall fix the amount calculating a day of punishment or measure of security as a day's wages determined by the judge of first instance. Any prior compensation shall not prevent anyone claiming subsequent compensation, to be claimed before the appropriate competent courts." Art. 286: “Judicial deprivation of liberty. This compensation shall also be granted when there is a declaration of an inexistent fact, when it does not concern a criminal matter, or the participation of the accused is not proven, when the latter has suffered a deprivation of liberty during the proceedings." Art. 287: “Obligation. The State, under the circumstances of Articles 284 and 286, is obliged to make payment, without prejudice to its right to collect from the judge in case the latter has committed an offense. Art. 288: “More favorable law. compensation as regulated herein." The enactment of any subsequent more favorable law shall not allow for

Select target paragraph3