90 318. Furthermore, even though the State cannot justify its total inactivity to carry out an investigation in view of the fact that the incidents were not brought to the attention of the competent authority, by means of the procedure established in the domestic legislation, the Court notes from the evidence furnished that, as to the reported facts and statements of which there is no record that an investigation has been conducted (supra para. 302) the complaints were lodged several months, even years, after the incidents. This is true with respect to several facts regarding the alleged physical and verbal attacks and damage to the property309, as well as with respect to the statements rendered by public officials310. 319. In this respect, the Court considers that the delay of the alleged victims in bringing the alleged illicit facts to the attention of the competent authorities, in due time, should be taken into account when evaluating the due diligence and, if applicable, the effectiveness of the investigations. This in view of the fact that the passage of time hinders, and even invalidates the practice of the procedures for taking evidence in order to prove the materiality of the fact, identify the possible perpetrators and accomplices and determine the probable criminal responsibilities. 320. In this case, the alleged victims or their representatives did not allege any impediment to lodge the complaints nor did they provide a satisfactory explanation in relation to the delay in bringing to the attention of the competent authorities the facts they considered so serious. Therefore, what is reasonable is that the alleged victims would have displayed greater diligence and interest when resorting to the available remedies in order to carry out the investigation in question311. 321. As to the facts that were effectively brought to the attention of the Attorney General’s Office, the Court considers that given that this office is in charge of the criminal prosecution, such authority should have rendered a decision to order the opening of the corresponding investigation or to request the dismissal of the complaint, where appropriate. This has not been verified in the instant case regarding the facts brought to the attention of 309 In this way, the incident of March 1, 2004 was reported 8 months after it happened; the incident of January 18, 2004, 9 months after it happened; the incident of February 19, 2004 was reported 8 months after it happened; the incident of August 27, 2005 was reported 6 months after it happened; the incident of July 11, 2005 was reported 8 months after it happened; the incident of December 10, 2002 was reported 3 months after it happened; the incident of August 9, 2003 was reported more than a year and two months after it happened;; the incident of July 17, 2002 was reported 2 months and three months after it happened; the incident of November 18, 2002 was reported almost 2 months after it happened; the incident of April 11, 2005 was reported almost 10 months after it happened; the incident of January 23, 2005 was reported more than one year after it happened ; the incident of December 3, 2002 was reported 3 months after it happened ; and the incident of May 29, 2004 was reported 5 months after it happened . 310 Thus, the statement made by the President on October 4, 2001 was reported almost four months after such date; the statement of January 27, 2002 was reported one year and one month after that date; the statement of June 9, 2002 was reported 9 months after that date; the statement of June 13, 2002 was reported 9 months after that date; the statement of September 18, 2002 was reported 6 months after that date; the statement of December 7, 2002 was reported 3 months after that date; the statement of December 8, 2002 was reported 3 months after that date; the statement of December 15, 2002 was reported 3 months after that date; the statement of January 12, 2003 was reported almost 2 months after that date; the statement of November 9, 2003 was reported almost a year after that date; the statement of January 12, 2004 was reported more than nine months after that date; the statement of February 15, 2004 was reported more than 8 months after that date; the statement of May 9, 2004 was reported more than five months after that date; the statement of August 16, 2004 was reported more than two months after that date; the statement of October 4, 2005 was reported more than five months after that date and the statement made by the Ministry of Domestic Affairs and Justice on December 10, 2002 was reported three months after that date. 311 Cf., in this sense, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Bayram and Yildrim v. Turkey, Decision of 29 January 2002, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2002-III; Yildiz and others v. Turkey, Decision of 28 September 2006; and Elsanova v. Russia, Decision of 15 November 2005 .