CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5. In her comments of 3 February 2017, the author reiterated that the existence of a judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in no way presented an obstacle to consideration of the case by the Committee. She notes that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has not entered a reservation to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.6 The case of Joe Castillo is not being examined by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as that body issued its judgment on 27 November 2012. While the Committee cannot admit a communication if the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, it can admit it after completion of the review. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 The State party provides background information on the conflict in the area where the events occurred, which was related to the implementation of the Land and Agricultural Development Act adopted by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in 2001. The Act authorized the provision of temporary land titles to campesinos who were farming on public land. Landowners were strongly opposed to the policy and saw it as a threat. Some landowners paid Colombian paramilitaries to assassinate campesino leaders who were seeking enforcement of the new law. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights itself, in its report on the merits, emphasized that the analysis of the question of whether responsibility could properly be attributed to the State was particularly complex owing to the existence of different versions as to the background, motives and even actors involved in the attack, noting that “this broad context alone [was] not sufficient to attribute to the State responsibility for violation of the duty of prevention”.7 6.2 In connection with the events of 27 August 2003, the State party notes that Public Prosecution Office No. 20 for the Judicial District of Zulia opened a criminal investigation on 28 August 2003. A number of useful and necessary tasks were undertaken as part of the investigation, including a visual inspection of the crime scene, an autopsy, a forensic examination, the expert analysis of blood samples, mapping of the crime scene, a ballistics comparison and interviews with eyewitnesses. Once those tasks had been completed, it was concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to determine criminal liability. Accordingly, on 28 November 2006 the case was closed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The author was formally notified of that fact. In accordance with the provisions of the Code, she had the option of applying to the presiding judge to request a review of the grounds for discontinuing the case. 6.3 The State party notes that, to date, no sufficient evidence to warrant the reopening of the criminal investigation has come to light. 6 7 The author refers, inter alia, to communication No. 986/2001, Semey v. Spain, Views adopted on 30 July 2003. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, merits. The Commission found the following with regard to the duty to prevent: “100. Although it is true that the State recognized a broader situation of violence in the border zone of the State of Zulia, where paramilitary groups and hired killers operate, this broad context alone is not sufficient to attribute to the State responsibility for violation of the duty of prevention. Nor is it possible to impute responsibility to the State for breach of that duty based solely on the climate of harassment of the activities of human rights defenders in Venezuela without factoring in other circumstances. Furthermore, while there is evidence that Joe Luis Castillo González was under observation because of his work and was a target for certain groups in the area, that evidence came to light after the investigation was opened. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the appropriate State authorities had any knowledge of this particular situation before the attack such that they would have been in a position to take reasonable steps to prevent it. 101. Based on the above, the Commission finds that it lacks sufficient evidence to attribute to the State responsibility for violation of the duty of prevention where the killing of Joe Luis Castillo González and the injuries to Yelitze Moreno de Castillo and the boy Luis César Castillo Moreno are concerned.” 6