62 213. The State informed that even though the complaint was filed more than five months after the incident, the investigation would have been opened, ex officio, on the same day of the facts. On September 21, 2002, officials appointed to the DISIP visited the premises of Globovisión, in order to obtain information about the facts and took the statement of Mrs. Rossana Rodríguez. The State has not informed on the proceedings carried out after such date. In such regard, the Court notes an unwarranted procedural delay on the part of the Attorney General's Office of more than four and a half years. 214. Therefore, it deems that the evidence on record is not enough to consider this fact as proven, except for the damage to certain assets. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the State did not justify the reasons why there was not procedural activity in the investigation for four and a half years. * * * 215. The Commission alleged that on November 18, 2002, at around midday, unidentified individuals threw a grenade at Globovisión’s headquarters. The explosion caused a fire in the parking lot and entrance to the station, damaging the building and several vehicles. The representatives pointed out that the object thrown was a fragmentation grenade; that in order to put out the fire, the intervention of the fire brigade of Caracas was needed and that neither of the employees of the television station was injured; though the employees would have had "the typical shock that every person who is a victim of a terrorist attack suffers from". Regarding this fact, there is no evidence proving that an investigation has been conducted (infra para. 302 and 318), though from the arguments put forward by the representatives, it can be inferred that investigative proceedings were carried out between November 19, 2002 and December 14, 2005 such as interviews, technical reports, records related to the investigations and transcripts189. 216. The Court notes that the evidence furnished suggests that this incident, in effect, took place 190, that several vehicles were damaged, as well as the surface of the building of Globovisión. There is no evidence neither showing damage to the physical integrity of the people that were in there or proving that a state agent had participated of the facts. * * * 188 Cf. Request for justification of June 17, 2003 presented on before the 20º Municipal Court of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area, containing the statements of Felipe Antonio Lugo Durán, Wilmer Escalona Arnal (records of evidence, volume IV, pages 893 and 903); Affidavit rendered by Wilmer Escalona Arnal on April 15, 2008 (records of evidence, volume XXXII, pages 8790-8793) and Statement of Wilmer Escalona Arnal (records of evidence, volume X, appendix 50 to the brief containing pleading, motions and evidence ) 189 Cf., charter of complaints filed before the Attorney General's Office, prepared by the representatives (records of evidence, volume XIV, appendix 69 to the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, page 4021). 190 The camera shows a charred vehicle and another two vehicles in combustion with a man trying to put out the fire with a fire extinguisher. The firemen also appear working in the site in order to control the fire. The video also shows another half- charred vehicle, which fire was already extinguished There are also two vehicles that are burned and surrounded by yellow restraining tapes. Cf. video (appendix 3 to the application); request for justification of June 17, 2003 presented before the 20º Municipal Court of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area, containing the statement of José Inciarte (records of evidence, volume IV, page 915) and brief of October 26, 2004 filed with the 68º Public Prosecutor Office of Caracas Metropolitan Area (records of evidence, volume V, pages 1671-1749).