CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015
2.7
Public Prosecution Office No. 20 for the State of Zulia, located in the town of
Machiques de Perijá, opened a criminal investigation into the case on 28 August 2003. The
investigation was conducted by the Agency for Scientific, Criminal and Forensic
Investigations; Public Prosecution Office No. 11, which had full jurisdiction at the national
level by order of the Directorate for Ordinary Crimes of the Office of the Attorney General
of the Republic; the Directorate for the Protection of Fundamental Rights; and Public
Prosecution Office No. 83 of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan District of Caracas.
On 28 November 2006, the case was closed without any suspects having been identified.
2.8 According to the author, 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 paramilitary
and a member of the National Guard, who claimed that Joe Luis Castillo González’s name
was on a list of targets kept by paramilitary groups and that the mayor was aware of the
actions of these groups, which operated with his acquiescence.
2.9
With regard to her access to information relating to the case, the author claims that
she was not notified that the case had been closed and only found out when she visited the
prosecutor’s office in person. She also asserts that she requested the original file from the
Public Prosecution Service on 24 May 2005. She had previously been provided only with
certain parts of the file and was informed that the other parts were subject to confidentiality
requirements. However, she was not able to view the file in full until 2007. The Vicariate of
Caracas requested copies of the file from the Public Prosecution Service on 7 June 2007, 29
September 2008 and 4 February 2009. Despite the three requests for certified copies, they
were provided only with an uncertified copy. The file was made available to the author for
viewing only in 2007 and, although copies of the records of proceedings were obtained by
the author from Public Prosecution Office No. 20, they were issued as confidential
documents and did not include the decree declaring that the investigation had been
discontinued.
2.10 The violent incident that the author experienced, combined with the knowledge that
its perpetrators had not been caught, caused her emotional and psychological harm and led
her to require specialized care. The author provides a medical report to that effect.2
2.11 The author brought the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, which found several violations of the American Convention on Human Rights. 3
2
3
Clinical psychologist Claudia Ernestina Carrillo Ramírez treated the author from February 2004 to
2012. In her affidavit, she asserts that the author suffered from depressive disorder and post-traumatic
stress disorder. The author received medication to palliate the consequences of these disorders. The
author suffered from an acute sense of vulnerability to violent attacks that prevented her from moving
freely, ordering her ideas and rationally identifying potential threats. In terms of physical
consequences, the author had to undergo abdominal surgery on two occasions as a result of the
injuries suffered during the attack. The psychologist also stated that the son, Luis César Castillo
Moreno, suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and, once he learned what had happened, also
suffered from depressive disorder.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, report No. 120/10, case No. 12.605, Joe Luis Castillo
González et al. v. Venezuela, merits, decision of 22 October 2010. In its notification of the transfer of
the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, dated 22 February 2011, the Commission
summarized its conclusions on the case as follows: “The attack against Joe Luís Castillo González
remains in impunity, as the State did not carry out serious and effective investigations to identify
those responsible and, where appropriate, impose corresponding sanctions. The investigation initiated
in relation to these events had serious irregularities and was closed by the public prosecutor’s office
without taking any actions aimed at clarifying the facts according to logical lines of investigation. The
Commission considered proven that, in the investigation, there were indicia of presumable
connivance and/or collaboration on the part of State agents in the murder of Joe Luis Castillo
González, indicia that were dismissed without the respective investigations.” Among the actions not
taken, the Commission noted the lack of ballistic trajectory analysis and comparisons, the lack of
coordination between various judicial bodies, the lack of follow-up of logical lines of inquiry that
took into account the context in which the events had occurred or the modus operandi of certain
actors, the lack of investigation of judicial proceedings in Colombia that might be connected and the
dismissal of lines of investigation in connection with the possible participation of paramilitary and
even State agents in the attack.
3