CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 3.5 With regard to the violation of the human right to security of person as set forth in article 9 (1), read in conjunction with article 2, the author submits that the State party’s failure to implement preventive measures to mitigate the risk facing Joe Luis Castillo seriously jeopardized his personal safety and that of his family. 3.6 The author claims that her rights under article 14, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), have been violated by reason of the absence of a satisfactory investigation and the failure to provide judicial safeguards in the course of the investigation. The investigation failed to address key elements, such as the risk of falling victim to contract killings faced by human rights defenders in the area and by Joe Castillo, in particular, because of his involvement in the pursuit of land claims, his representation of campesino leaders before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the hazardous nature of his work with refugees in border areas and the possibility that he was being targeted by paramilitary groups. The investigation was mired in a multitude of ineffectual and disorganized efforts, with no proper coordination by the Public Prosecution Service or criminal investigation agencies. There was a lack of diligence in the collection of evidence and a failure to scrutinize other judicial proceedings that may have been connected with the case. 3.7 The author asserts, in particular, that there has been a violation of article 14 (3) (c) as a result of undue delays in the judicial process, and she maintains that this right applies not just to accused persons in a criminal trial but also to victims of an offence. She also states that victims’ lack of access to information in a case file violates articles 2 (3) and 14 (1). Providing victims with all the available information relating to a case and the persons suspected of involvement in it, provided that this does not prejudice the course of the investigation, should be regarded as a guarantee of the independence and impartiality of the court. 3.8 The author asks the Committee to request that the State party investigate the case and prosecute and punish the perpetrators, bring the protocols on due diligence in investigations into line with international standards; adopt legislative, administrative or other measures to protect human rights defenders; and provide redress for the violations suffered by the victims through the payment of financial compensation for moral injury and material damage, as well as reimbursement for past, present and future legal costs and expenses incurred at the national and international levels. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 The State party submitted its observations to the Committee on 29 December 2016 and 28 April 2017. 4.2 The State party notes that the case was reviewed by the inter-American system. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issued report No. 22/07 on admissibility, in which it declared the case admissible, and report No. 120/10 on the merits, in which it found the State responsible for the violation of a number of rights set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission subsequently submitted the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. On 12 November 2012, the Court issued a judgment in which it found no violation by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the rights of Joe Luis Castillo González, Yelitze Lisbeth Moreno and Luis César Castillo, as protected by the Convention, and closed the case. The State party therefore considers that the communication is inadmissible. 4.3 The State party requests that the communication be found inadmissible on the grounds that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued a judgment on the merits of the same case. The present communication differs from others considered by the Committee that had previously been examined by other international bodies in that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights considered not only the admissibility but also the merits of the communication.5 The State party calls on international bodies to review their practice of considering complaints that have already been ruled on by other international human rights courts. 5 The State party refers, inter alia, to communication No. 2202/2012, Castañeda v. Mexico, Views adopted on 18 July 2013. 5