CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 Subsequently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a ruling on 27 November 2012 in which it found no violations of the Convention. 4 2.12 The author concedes that she has not been able to exhaust domestic remedies and notes that this is due to the fact that they have proved to be unreasonably lengthy. The Prosecution Service’s decision to drop the case precluded the timely processing of effective remedies to protect the rights of the victims. In addition, she notes that there is no international legal procedure under way, since the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concluded its hearing of the case on 27 November 2012, at which time it issued its judgment on the merits. Furthermore, the three-year period for the submission of a communication provided for in rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure has not been exceeded. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the murder of her husband and the injuries that she and her son sustained, together with the existence of evidence indicating that local authorities were aware of the criminal activities of paramilitary groups responsible for the murders of human rights defenders in the area and did not take effective protection or prevention measures, as well as the subsequent delays and omissions in the criminal investigation and the failure to provide full redress, constitute violations of her human rights and those of her son and her deceased husband. She claims, in particular, that they amount to violations of the rights to life, integrity of person, personal security and judicial safeguards set forth in articles 6 (1), 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, and article 14, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in the case of Joe Luis Castillo González, and the rights to personal integrity, personal security and judicial safeguards set forth in articles 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, and article 14, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in the case of herself and her son. 3.2 The author claims that the State party failed in its duty under article 6 (1), read in conjunction with article 2, to adopt preventive and protective measures in connection with her husband, as a member of a vulnerable group (namely human rights defenders), even though the authorities were aware of the risks facing the members of that group and the campesinos with whom they were working. The existence of those risks had been highlighted in the requests for precautionary measures made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 12 March 2001 and 29 August 2003 in respect of the author and her son, following the death of Joe Castillo. The author stresses that, in addition to being a victim, she is the only eyewitness capable of recognizing those responsible for the death of her husband and, as such, her protection should have been a priority in the context of the investigation. Human rights defenders working in the border area at that time were particularly vulnerable, and the State therefore ought to have taken proactive measures to protect them. The work being done in the Vicariate of Machiques triggered adverse reactions on the part of the paramilitaries, guerrillas and other opponents of the land reform process implemented after the entry into force of the Land Act. 3.3 The State party has also violated the right to life of Joe Luis Castillo by failing to properly investigate the case and to identify and punish the perpetrators, which also constitutes a denial of the right to redress. 3.4 The author considers that the State is responsible by omission for a violation of the right to physical integrity of Joe Luis Castillo, her son and herself, as set forth in article 7, read in conjunction with article 2. The infringement of the right to physical integrity is evidenced by the gunshot wounds sustained by the author, her husband and her son, their subsequent hospitalization, and the emotional and psychological harm suffered by the author and her son following the attack. In connection with the responsibility of the State, the author cites the factors previously described, namely the absence of preventive measures and the non-fulfilment of the obligations to investigate the crime, punish the perpetrators and provide redress. 4 4 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, Judgment of 27 November 2012.