92 to which employees and reporters of Globovisión would have been subjected since the year 2001 and also, they requested information on the progress of the investigations into the facts previously mentioned316. 329. In turn, on January 26, 2005 the Director of Common Crimes agreed to assign the 50º Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor’s Office "in order for such office to hear and decide on the cases related to the different media, [among them] Globovisión”317. On March 12, 2005, more than three years after the opening of the investigation, as has been mentioned, the 50º Public Prosecutor ordered “to organize the entire proceedings received”318 . In such regard, there is no evidence that the Attorney General’s Office has carried out any procedural activity between April 2002- when some interviews were conducted- and January 2005, of which the State provided no explanation whatsoever. By June 2008, the hearing of said case would have been assigned to the 30º Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor’s Office, according to information provided by the State. As a consequence, this case was successively assigned to different public prosecutor’s offices. 330. It does not spring from the facts the justification or reasons of the number and frequency of the changes made as to the authority in charge of the inquiry. The State did not make any justification either. There is nothing on records that suggests those changes were necessary; besides, it is not clear that they constituted an improvement in the development and effectiveness of the investigations. C.ii.2 Procedural delay of the Attorney General’s Office 331. The representatives asserted that the conduct of the Attorney General’s Office was negligent in the course of the criminal proceedings regarding the complaints lodged. They argued that the alleged victims not only requested investigative measures, but also furnished the available items of evidence. They further alleged that, in most of the cases, the Attorney General's Office failed to conduct the investigations or abandoned them after carrying out the first proceedings; therefore, in order to determine that this unsuccessful result has not been the product of a mechanic application of certain procedural formalities considering that the State also failed to effectively look for the truth, the State, then, has to demonstrate it has carried out a prompt, exhaustive, serious and impartial investigation. 332. The State asserted that it has enabled the entire 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, as well as in those cases where the Attorney General’s Office must conduct the corresponding investigations at the request of the aggrieved party. 333. As to the term of length of the preliminary or investigative phase in Venezuela, section 313 of the COPP provides that "the Attorney General’s Office shall try to comply with such term with the diligence the case so requires. After six months as of identification of the accused, the accused may require the investigation judge the determination of a prudential time, of no less than thirty days and no more than a hundred and twenty days, for the conclusion of the investigation". 316 Cf. Brief lodged with the 68º Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area of October 26, 2004 (records of evidence, volume V, pages 1671-1749). 317 Cf. Official letter Nº DDC-R-7717 sent to the 50° Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor’s Office on January 26, 2005 (records of evidence, volume XXX, page 7677; volume XXXII, pages 8184, 8261 and 8386). 318 Cf. Record of the 50° Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor Attorney of March 12, 2005 (records of evidence, volume XXX, page 7678; volume XXXII, pages 8185, 8262 and 8387).