86 303. The Court notes that most of the criminal complaints lodged with the Attorney General’s Office, regarding the facts of this case and those facts alleged to be in breach of Articles 5, 13 and 21 of the Convention, deal with alleged physical and verbal attacks committed against reporters and other employees of Globovisión, as well as alleged damage to assets and premises of Globovisión, many of which, as has been analyzed, constituted restrictions on the jobs of the employees of said media (supra para. 279). Furthermore, the speeches delivered by public officials were reported before the Attorney General’s Office given the fact that they allegedly constituted crimes. 304. Furthermore, there is no record that the alleged victims had resorted to other proceedings or other remedies established within the domestic legal system, apart from the criminal proceedings, regarding those incidents and the statements rendered by highranked state authorities. Only one complaint was lodged with the Ombudsman in relation to some of the reported facts (infra para. 350 to 357). 305. Given the circumstances of these facts, considering that an important issue of this controversy is that the parties have emphasized the complaints and investigations conducted by the criminal courts and the Ombudsman, it is necessary to point out the cases in which the State had the obligation, according to its domestic law, to conduct a prompt and effective investigation ex officio in order to ensure the rights impaired in this case, C.i The criminal action under the Venezuelan legislation and the lack of investigation into some of reported facts 306. The State mentioned that the Commission did not include in the controversy the fact that the same petitioners acknowledged that many of the facts constituted slander or insults that, pursuant to the Venezuelan legislation, are crimes prosecutable on an ex officio basis. This means that the alleged victims themselves had to bring the corresponding charges. The State also asserted that it has enabled the whole judicial mechanism in order to conduct the corresponding investigations and, if applicable, to establish the appropriate responsibilities that may correspond by law to the Attorney General’s Office to try and investigate, in each of the cases. 307. The Commission alleged that once a publicly prosecutable crime has been committed, the State is obliged to pursue and promote the criminal proceedings to their final consequences and that, in such cases, this is the suitable way to clear up incidents, prosecute the guilty, and impose the applicable punishments, apart from enabling other forms of redress. The Commission held that “anyway, several years passed since the communication of the notitia criminis to the State until the State finally closed the case files for alleged inadmissibility of the complaints; that is, in real terms, the [alleged] victims were never informed of the fact that they have resorted to an allegedly wrong channel in order to be able to correct the alleged flaws”. 298 The Court was informed on other investigations related to facts that are not included within the factual framework of the application. Hence, in response to a request of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, the State informed on the investigation conducted for an incident that occured on February 21, 2002; the investigation related to the incidents that occurred on February 19, 2004 at the premises of Globovisión, located in Lomas del Cuño of the National Park "El Ávila"; the case file opened for facts that allegedly occurred on November 23, 2006 and the investigation related to the facts of August 27, 2007 for the crime of threats, in which Ana Karina Villalba appears as victim. Therefore, even though such investigations may be related to the alleged victims or the media Globovisión, this Tribunal shall not analyzed them.