13 corroborated by the lack of due diligence, the procedural inactivity, and the delay in the investigations. Following this line of thought, it should be mentioned that the second subchapter: a) Evidences the need to have produced the evidence invoked by the State by which it was determined or not the participation of the victims in the events mentioned or “that they took part of acts related to disorderly conducts” (paragraph 167) inasmuch as the representatives denied that the aggressions suffered by the alleged victims were the consequence of their own behavior (paragraph 165), even when, as it was mentioned, the State raised it as ground for exemption of liability. b) Surprises me considering that the sentencing majority pointed out that it was not going to rule upon the suitability and effectiveness of the protective measures (paragraph 168); nevertheless, upon analyzing the facts, it examined each one of the judicial proceedings (paragraph 169 and subsequent), individually, as if it was possible to separate into sections the actions of the Venezuelan judicial system; this decision is made after it was mentioned that the mere order to adopt protective measures does not show whether the State has effectively protected the beneficiaries of the measures. (paragraph 167). All this highlights the connection between the facts and the judicial system (and within this, the Venezuelan judicial system) and all the foregoing with the judgment adopted by the majority of the judges. c) Systematically makes an analysis of each one of the facts, and the sentencing majority determined that third parties not related to the government carried out the activities that hindered the alleged victims from doing their jobs; following this line of thought, it concludes that because of the actions of the third parties, the State is not responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment. Regardless of this consideration, it is expressly mentioned that in most of the cases, there were actions and omissions attributable to the Venezuelan judicial system21 and the State did not justify it; for example, it was mentioned that: The Court notes an unwarranted procedural delay; or that there is no evidence proving that the State acted with due diligence in the development of the investigations or at the appropriate procedural time; or that the investigation lasted a certain period of time; or that it was ordered the investigation after certain time; or that the first measure was adopted after a certain number of years; or that no proceeding was instituted or no investigation carried out or that there was delay in such proceeding or investigation; or that no medical-legal evaluation was performed in certain cases; or that there were unwarranted delays in the delivery of certain decisions by the authorities in charge of the criminal prosecution, based on the fact that there was no sufficient evidence in the investigation. (See, paragraphs 167, 172, 183, 187, 194, 196, 199, 215, 221, 225, 228, 231, 235, 240, 244, 249, 252, 256, of the judgment). 21 “Article 253. The power to administer justice derives from the citizens and is enforced on behalf o the Republic as mandated by law. The bodies of the Judiciary have the responsibility of hearing the cases and matters according to their jurisdiction, by means of the procedures determined by law and they must enforce and carry out their decisions. The judicial system is formed by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the other courts determined by law, the Attorney General of the Republic, the Public Defender, the criminal investigation divisions, the assistants and officers of justice, the penitentiary system, the alternative means of justice, the citizens who participate in th e administration of justice according to the law and the lawyers authorized to practice". The emphasis is mine.