CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 alleged failure to implement protection and prevention measures for human rights defenders, in particular her husband, despite their vulnerability as a group and the fact that the State was aware of the risks facing them in the border area of Zulia where they worked; and (b) the State’s failure to properly investigate the attack on the family and the fact that, in consequence, the perpetrators have not been identified or punished and the author has not been able to obtain redress. 9.3 With regard to protection and prevention measures, the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that there was no evidence of threats or intimidation directed at the author’s family prior to the attack, nor had any request for protection been made, despite the fact that Joe Luis Castillo and other human rights defenders had submitted a request to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for protective measures for 52 refugees. The Committee also notes the conclusions of the Inter-American Commission and the InterAmerican Court referred to by the State party. The Commission, in particular, noted that, while there were some indications that Joe Luis Castillo was being watched because of his work and was being targeted by certain groups in the area, those indications only became apparent once the investigation had begun, and there was no evidence to indicate that State authorities were aware of the particular situation before the attack took place and therefore could not have taken reasonable measures of prevention (para. 6.1). The Court, for its part, noted that, prior to the attack, Joe Luis Castillo had not been subjected to threats or intimidation and no public complaint or report had been received by State authorities regarding a risk to him or his family or regarding the need for protection measures (para. 6.9). On the basis of the information submitted by the parties, the Committee considers that, although at the time of the incidents in question human rights defenders, with whom Joe Luis Castillo worked (para. 2.1) in the course of his legal and humanitarian activities, were at risk by reason of the complex interactions occurring among a range of different actors, causes and interests, that risk was not sufficiently specific in the particular circumstances of the case to trigger the State party’s legal responsibility for failing to take appropriate measures to protect a particular person, in this case Joe Luis Castillo. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts as presented do not disclose a violation of the rights of the author, her son and her deceased husband to life and to security, under articles 6 and 9 (1) of the Covenant. 9.4 With regard to the lack of a proper criminal investigation into the attack on the family, the Committee understands the author’s claims as falling under articles 6 (1) and 7, in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. The author maintains that there were many shortcomings in the criminal investigation, notably a lack of coordination among the agencies involved and a failure to follow up on specific lines of inquiry, particularly the statements obtained from an alleged member of a paramilitary group and a member of the National Guard, who claimed that Joe Luis Castillo’s name was on a list of targets kept by paramilitary groups and that the mayor of Machiques was aware of the actions of these groups, which operated with his acquiescence. The Committee notes the State party’s position that a genuine investigation into the attack was conducted during the more than three-year period before the case was closed and that the Inter-American Court concluded that the investigation had been conducted in a reasonable manner (paras. 6.11−6.14). 9.5 The Committee notes that the Inter-American Commission considered it to have been proven that the investigation revealed evidence of the possible collusion and/or involvement of State agents in the attack and that relevant lines of inquiry were discontinued without being exhausted. However, the Inter-American Court considered the steps that the Venezuelan authorities did and did not take. While it noted the existence of omissions and delays related to specific procedural or other aspects of the judicial investigation, it found that those omissions and delays, when viewed in the context of the investigation as a whole, were not of sufficient magnitude or severity to establish the State’s international responsibility for a violation of the presumed victims’ right to judicial guarantees and protection (paras. 6.13−6.14). 9.6 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which States must establish administrative mechanisms to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies and that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and 11