97 354. Section 121 of the COPP (2001) establishes that "The Ombudsman and any natural person or human rights defense association may present a complaint against public officials or employees, or agents of the police force who had violated the human rights in exercise of their functions or as a result thereof”327. 355. The witness proposed by the State, Mr. Omar Solórzano García, mentioned that “some reporters approached the Ombudsman with complaints, petitions; even that is in the files of the Ombudsman”. He also expressed that it was not up to the Ombudsman to initiate the corresponding criminal actions, since that it is an authority of the Attorney General’s Office in Venezuela; that the Ombudsman substantiates the complaints, draw up records and, if it considers that some type of crime was committed, urges the Attorney General’s Office to initiate the corresponding investigations and, if necessary, makes recommendations to the bodies involved. He further alleged that the transcripts of the meetings were available. Likewise, he emphasized that the alleged attacks the reporters would have subjected to were committed by third parties, not by state agents and that the Ombudsman, as an institution, has the obligation to ensure the human rights of the citizens before the State and monitors that the procedures of the Attorney General’s Office are respected, so that the human rights of the individuals are not violated. 356. In this case, the complaints were submitted to the Ombudsman on February 1, 2002 and expanded on March 13 and April 24, 2002328. The first complaint reintroduced the same facts that in the complaint of January 31, 2002 submitted before the Attorney General’s Office (supra para. 316, 326 and 337). In statements of grounds of November 1, 2005 and February 2, 2006 the Bureau of Judicial Affairs of the Ombudsman recommended to dismiss the complaint filed and considered that it was not competent to defend the rights of the plaintiffs. Specially, it concluded that "the plaintiffs should resort to the Fundamental Rights Protection Department of the Attorney General’s Office in order to request to conduct the investigations and proceedings it deems pertinent”329. Said statements of grounds were brought to the attention of the Director of Judicial Services of the Ombudsman, who communicated the approval to the Director of Judicial Affairs on February 23, 2006330. 357. The Court considers that, even though in certain events, the filing of a complaint with the Ombudsman may imply effective and useless measures in case of alleged human rights violations, it is not, in fact, a remedy to which the people must necessarily resort. Once the proceeding begins, the Ombudsman must, within the sphere of its authority, activate the corresponding proceedings and decide what it is appropriate if the issue falls outside its competence. It is clear that the facts reported were also brought to the attention of the Attorney General’s Office and that it was not up to the Ombudsman to initiate the corresponding criminal actions. Nevertheless, there is no evidence on record of the reasons why the Ombudsman failed to decide on the lack of investigations. Moreover, even though most of the facts reported were committed by unidentified individuals, at that moment, it was alleged direct actions or possible negligence from the part of the security forces and state agents; therefore, it is not clear why the Ombudsman did not act accordingly. The 327 Basic Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 300. Cf. brief presented on February 1, 2002 before the Ombudsman (records of evidence, volume XVIII, appendix 9 to the application, page 977-1023); brief presented on March 13, 2002 before the Ombudsman (records of evidence, volume XVIII, appendix 11 to the application, pages 1033-1039) and brief presented on April 24, 2002 before the Ombudsman (records of evidence, volume XVIII, appendix 10 to the application, pages 10251031) 328 329 Cf. statements of grounds of the Department of Judicial Affairs of the Ombudsman of November 1, 2005 and February 2, 2006 (records of evidence, volume XVIII, pages 5041-5050 and 5052-5060). 330 Cf. statement of ground DGSJ-00183 of the Bureau of Judicial Affairs of the Ombudsman of February 23, 2006 (records of evidence, volume XVIII, page 5061).