A/HRC/45/33 B. Individual criminal responsibility 160. The mission has reasonable grounds to believe that most of the violations and crimes documented in the present report were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, pursuant to or in furtherance of two distinct State policies. First, there was a policy to silence, discourage and quash opposition to the Government of President Maduro, including by targeting individuals who, through various means, demonstrated their disagreement with the Government, or who were perceived as being against the Government. In addition, their relatives and friends were targeted for being associated with them. Second, there was a policy to combat crime, including by eliminating individuals perceived as “criminals” through extrajudicial execution. 161. The mission has reasonable grounds to believe that the following crimes against humanity were committed in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the period under review: murder; imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberty; torture; rape and other forms of sexual violence; enforced disappearance of persons in the Barlovento case; and other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to the body or to mental or physical health. Some of the same conduct may also constitute the crime against humanity of persecution, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 162. All the violations and crimes documented in the present report give rise to individual criminal responsibility, either as crimes against humanity or as distinct crimes established in national law, or both. The mission does not attempt to determine the modes of criminal responsibility that different individuals mentioned in the report may incur. However, the report presents ample information demonstrating that, in the period of review, State authorities – both at the presidential and the ministerial level – held and exercised their power and oversight over the civilian and military security forces and agencies identified in the report as perpetrators of violations and crimes documented, namely: the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, including the Bolivarian National Guard; the National Bolivarian Police, including its Special Action Forces; the Scientific, Criminal and Criminological Investigator Corps; municipal and state police forces; the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service; and the Directorate General of Military Counter-intelligence. 163. The information available suggests that the measures taken by State authorities to prevent or repress these crimes, or to afford an effective remedy to victims, were largely insufficient. At the same time, there are multiple indications that, despite having knowledge of the crimes documented in the report, the authorities not only failed to change their course of action, but in fact, continued to adopt policies and plans and contributed to their implementation, resulting in the commission of those crimes. Authorities provided essential contributions, including the material, logistical and human resources necessary for the security and intelligence operations that, as documented in the report, resulted in the commission of crimes. 164. The mission has reasonable grounds to believe that the President; the Minister of Interior, Justice and Peace; and the Minister for Defence ordered or contributed to the commission of the crimes documented in the report, and having the effective ability to take preventive and repressive measures, failed to do so. The exact contours and extent of these contributions must be duly investigated and a determination of their individual criminal responsibility – either in a national or international jurisdiction – must be made by the competent judicial authorities. 165. The mission also has reasonable grounds to believe that the directors of the security and intelligence entities, which were involved in the commission of the crimes documented in the report, ordered or contributed to the commission of these crimes, and that despite having the effective ability to take preventive and repressive measures, failed to do so. The exact contours and extent of these contributions must be duly investigated and a determination of their individual criminal responsibility – either in a national or an international jurisdiction – must be made by the competent judicial authorities. 19