16 validate the conclusion at which the majority of the judges arrived. Thus, in short, it is the public judicial system what is being analyzed by this Court and it is this issue on which the fundamental reasoning of this judgment was based. Ultimately, the judicial system in Venezuela is required to have a very high, general and uniform standard. The first thing that must be taken into account, in my opinion, is the nature of the service under question, the improvements and the difficulties entailed and what is needed for its development. Once the foregoing has been verified, it is possible to establish whether the system works poorly or with delay or if it simply did not work at all. The judgment made no analysis in that respect. Likewise, regarding the requirements for the admissibility of the state responsibility, it is important to emphasize the requirement related to the damage. It is necessary to mention, with accountability, that as to the damage, the instant case did not represent a special or abnormal damage. It is not special because the omissions and delays determined by the Court are not addressed at the alleged victims only, inasmuch as, unfortunately, the delay and other judicial deficiencies are common to all the members of the Venezuelan community. The State has made efforts to solve the problems of the judicial system and, in some cases, it had successfully remedied the situation. In fact, there are satisfactory results as to the labor reform with the entry into force of the Organic Law of Labor Procedure of the year 2002; nevertheless, as to the criminal matters are involved, in spite of the entry into force of the Organic Code of Procedure in the year 1998 (together with the subsequent reforms), the results have not been so successful, maybe because it is the jurisdiction that had historically tried more cases in the country. Consequently, the damage under analysis in this case is neither abnormal, inasmuch as it does not have more than the usual problems inherent to the functioning of a public service, as is the Venezuelan justice or the limitations imposed on the collective life. Definitely, it does not exceed the obstacles typical of the service. These comments are not intended to justify the way in which the Venezuelan judicial system works and the consequences it had in the instant case. Though this is not my intention, I have to mention insofar as were at the presence of human rights. It must be observed that these points were not taken into account to base the decision made in the judgment, let alone to catalogue what a reasonable term or due diligence means in relation to the investigation, inasmuch as it was established that the State failed to comply with the obligation to ensure the exercise of the right to seek, receive and impart information and the right to humane integrity because the investigations did not contribute to or constitute an effective means to guarantee the right to humane treatment and the right to seek, receive and impart information of the alleged victims. In other words, it is mostly because of the defects of the judicial system (at the criminal jurisdiction, considering that, as has been established at the beginning of this dissenting opinion, the victims did not exhaust other remedies, from which it cannot be inferred the same) that the Venezuelan State is held responsible and this responsibility is attributed to it without having analyzed the necessary grounds to establish the State’s responsibility for the system and the judicial service. Furthermore, it is necessary to emphasize, as mentioned in the judgment, the high level of conflict that existed in Venezuela at the moment of the occurrence of the unfortunate and repudiable facts reported, all of which minimizes the State’s responsibility or makes