CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 6.4 With regard to precautionary protection measures for the author and her son, the State party stresses that, following his death, the family of Joe Luis Castillo decided to leave the State of Zulia and move to the State of Miranda. Accordingly, the Office of the Chief Prosecutor for the State of Miranda requested protection measures for the author and her son. The measures were authorized on 24 September 2003 by the Third Court of First Instance, which instructed the police force in Miranda to put those measures into practice. The protection measures were extended on 15 May 2007. 8 The chief prosecutor’s office made efforts to locate the author, who presented herself on 16 June 2011 and stated that “at this stage, after so many years, I don’t think the protection measures are really necessary”. 6.5 On 1 October 2015, the State instituted proceedings to locate the author and determine her new address. On 18 December 2015, National Public Prosecution Office No. 76 summoned the author to an interview on 21 January 2016. The author did not attend. Following notification that the author had moved again, on 9 December 2016 the Office made renewed efforts to find her new address in order to provide protection to her and her family if she so wished. 6.6 In the light of the foregoing, the State party submits that the State bears no responsibility for the events of 27 August 2003. 6.7 In connection with the duty to prevent and protect and the right to personal and physical integrity, the State recalls that this duty relates to the means rather than the end result. In addition, it claims that there was no evidence of threats or intimidation directed at the Castillo González family prior to the attack nor had any request for protection been made, despite the fact that they had submitted a request to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for protective measures for 52 refugees from Río de Oro. That request was recorded by the Commission in its report No. 120/10 on the merits of the case. The file on the criminal investigation of the case shows that none of the individuals working in the Vicariate had made a request for police protection measures from the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela before the attack on the Castillo González family, nor had they approached the Ombudsman’s Office or the Public Prosecution Service. 6.8 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was aware that, in the course of his humanitarian work, Joe Castillo associated with Colombian citizens who were known to be guerrillas and who had reportedly been killed by paramilitary groups. This could have led the paramilitary groups to assume that Joe Castillo was protecting and collaborating with the guerrillas. However, the investigation did not find any indication that Joe Castillo had had any problems with the Venezuelan authorities. 6.9 The investigation did not uncover any evidence of acquiescence, collaboration or collusion of State agents. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that there was no proof of the existence of a structural risk that would have created a heightened duty of prevention. Complaints of human rights violations must include specific elements that will help to further the investigation, rather than being based on mere speculation and assumptions. 6.10 The State party lists the actions taken in the police and judicial investigations, including ballistics comparisons of the weapons seized in connection with other murders with the bullet casings collected in the Joe Luis Castillo case. 6.11 On the alleged violation of judicial guarantees, the State reiterates that a genuine investigation into the attack was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death during the three years and three months before the case was closed and that, although there were some omissions and delays, the quality of the investigation should be assessed as a whole. 6.12 The State party also makes reference, in this context, to the two interviews carried out by the police of Machiques on 12 September 2003 of E.H.T., alleged member of a paramilitary group, and E.A.G., former member of the National Guard, to which the author refers. The State party indicates that these interviews did not take the form of formal 8 The State party does not specify the concrete measures taken by the police to protect the author and her son. 7