CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 statements signed under oath by the persons in question. Furthermore, the information provided in the course of these interviews was very general and did not contain specific facts allowing a link to be established between the death of Joe Castillo and the possible involvement in it of State agents in the form of acquiescence, collaboration or connivance. 6.13 According to the State party, in its ruling the Inter-American Court refers to the following steps taken by Venezuelan authorities to investigate the killing of Joe Castillo: the collection of evidence at the scene of the attack; the identification of persons who witnessed the attack; two visual inspections of the crime scene and the car belonging to the victims; an autopsy and medical examination; expert appraisals based on the mapping of the location, the calculation of ballistic trajectories and blood analyses; interviews of eyewitnesses; the taking of a statement from the author; the preparation of an artist’s sketch; the photographic identification of three alleged paramilitaries by an employee of the Vicariate; and a medical examination of the author (para. 154). Information and statements were, however, also received in connection with the possible involvement of Colombian paramilitary groups in the attack, including the above-mentioned interviews (paras. 156−157). According to the Court, the evidence did not suggest that the authorities in charge of the investigation had taken steps to determine the accuracy of claims made by persons interviewed by the police to the effect that the persons involved in the attack included the mayor of Machiques, members of the National Guard, the leaders of a ranchers’ group and members of Colombian paramilitary groups allegedly recruited by ranchers in the area. After the case was closed on 18 May 2007, one person accused the mayor of Machiques of being responsible for the murder, according to a complaint filed before Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 4. That individual was summoned by Public Prosecutor Office No. 20 to an interview on 27 July 2010. While that summons was reissued on 19 May 2011, there is no record that the interview ever took place (para. 159). 6.14 Notwithstanding, in spite of eventual shortcomings, on the basis of the available body of evidence, the Court concluded that the investigation had been conducted in a reasonable manner. It added: “The omissions and delays mentioned, which are related to specific aspects or proceedings of the prosecutor’s investigation, assessed in the context of the investigation as a whole, are not of a sufficiently serious nature to attribute to the State international responsibility for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection of the alleged victims” (para. 162). 6.15 The State party also notes that discontinuing the case does not mean that it has been definitively closed. As no judicial decision has yet been issued in the case, the victim may request that the judge reopen the investigation and give instructions regarding the subsequent steps to be taken. The victim may also request that the presiding judge review the grounds on which the decision to discontinue the case was taken, pursuant to articles 316 and 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if the judge were to declare the case dismissed, that decision could be contested in the courts of appeal and cassation. The Public Prosecution Service can also reopen the case on its own initiative if new evidence comes to light or if the victim so requests. 6.16 Regarding the victims’ access to information, the State argues that the author and her representatives have had access to the case files. In its judgment, the Inter-American Court stated that, despite certain difficulties, Ms. Moreno and her representatives had been able to examine the files and maintain contact with the authorities in charge of the investigation, obtain information from them and ask them to undertake certain tasks. As to the alleged shortcomings in the implementation of protection measures for the author and her son, the Court noted that the body of evidence did not prove that the authorities had obstructed any actions by the beneficiaries of the measures or otherwise prejudiced the course or the outcome of the investigation (para. 170). Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 The author submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the merits on 3 February and 15 June 2017. 7.2 The author observes that the State acknowledges that, at the time of the attack, there was a generalized risk in the region owing to the internal armed conflict occurring in 8