85 300. As to the freedom of expression, the suitability of a criminal proceeding as an adequate and effective remedy to guarantee such right shall depend on the type of the action or omission that violates such right294. In effect, if the freedom of expression of a person is being impaired by an action that has violated, in turn, other rights such as the right to personal freedom, humane integrity or life, then, the criminal investigation may constitute, under such terms, a suitable remedy to protect such situation. In certain cases, a criminal proceeding may not be the means necessary to ensure proper protection for freedom of expression. Criminal proceedings should be “resorted to where fundamental legal rights must be protected from conducts which imply a serious infringement thereof and where they are proportionate to the seriousness of the damage caused”295. 301. The State pointed out that, under the Venezuelan legal system, there are other remedies that do not imply the need to resort to criminal proceedings, which could have been effective to guarantee the right to freedom of expression in this case. Specifically, it alleged that the writ of amparo established in the Basic Law on the Protection of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees [Ley Orgánica de Amparo sobre Derechos y Garantías Constitucionales] constitutes a prompt and effective remedy to challenge the facts alleged by the Commission and the representatives as impediments to access to the coverage of official events. 302. Of the 54 facts alleged in the application (including the 16 statements rendered by public officials), 40 facts were reported before the Attorney General’s Office and in 8 of the facts, the investigation was initiated, ex officio, by the Attorney General’s Office, even though such facts were, later on, reported by the alleged victims. None of the criminal complaints lodged with the Attorney General's Office by reporters and employees of Globovisión refer to the six facts alleged in the application of the Commission as barriers to access to official sources and/or state facilities (infra para. 370 to 395). Even though the Commission alleged, in the application, the existence of five investigations (supra para. 2 and 59) from the evidence furnished by the parties and the evidence requested to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 7 and 14) the Tribunal notes that of the facts and statements brought to the attention of the Attorney General’s Office, 19 of them were investigated296. None of these investigated facts relates to the statements rendered by public officials297. There is no record of any investigation conducted in relation to the other 13 incidents reported298. 294 The Court has considered that Article 13 may be violated under two different circumstances, depending on whether the violation results in the denial of freedom of expression or whether it results from the imposition of restrictions that are not authorized or legitimate Cf. the Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Art. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 59 para. 53 and 54; Case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay, supra note 59, para. 77. 295 Case of Kimel V. Argentina, supra note 59, para. 77. 296 Facts of November 22, 2001; December 10, 2001; January 9, 11 and 20, 2002; February 18, 2002; April 3, 2002; June 13, 2002; July 9, 2002; September 4, 11 and 21, 2002; January 3, 2003; December 3, 2003 (2 incidents on that same day); February 27, 2004; March 1, 2004 (2 incidents that same day) and May 29, 2004. 297 The State informed on the investigation conducted by the 34º Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor Office in relation to a complaint filed on March 8, 2006, regarding several statements rendered by public officials between September 19, 2004 and October 12, 2005, among other incidents. This complaint was combined to a subsequent complaint. The incidents reported and the investigations do not form part of the factual framework of this case. Nevertheless, the first complaint included a statement made by the President of the Republic on October 4, 2005, which is in fact mentioned by the Commission in its application. This complaint was dismissed on October 9, 2007 by the 10º Investigating Trial Court of the Criminal District of Caracas Metropolitan Area, on the basis of Article 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.