95 judges could not abstain from deciding because of silence, contradiction, deficiency, inaccuracy or ambiguity in the terms of the laws, nor could they unduly withhold any decision. Otherwise, they shall be held responsable for denial of justice”323. Given that the State did not provide some reason for which the corresponding Investigating judges have not yet rendered a decision regarding such requests for dismissal, this Court considers that the domestic authorities failed to comply with their duty to make a decision in such regard with due diligence. C.ii.6 Decisions to dismiss and discontinue the case without prejudice in relation to the lack of objection or request to reopen the case on the part of the petitioner 345. The State argued that the Venezuelan system of criminal prosecution empowers the Attorney General’s Office to order the discontinuance of the proceedings when the result of the investigations is insufficient to bring charges. In this case, the proceedings initiated by the Attorney General’s Office have been well grounded and justified. The alleged victims did not object to any of the decisions rendered on the dismissal and discontinuance of the proceedings. 346. The representatives argued that the State has intended to justify its inefficacy to continue developing the corresponding investigations on the lack of exercise of the pertinent actions by the alleged victims against such decisions, alleging that the failure to exercise such remedies evidences the alleged victims’ conformity with such decisions. The victims' inactivity does not justify the State's inactivity, inasmuch as the State is the only party obliged to comply with its role of investigator as the only authority entitled to prosecute crimes. 347. As has been mentioned, in the investigations into the facts of December 10, 2001; February 27, 2004; March 1, 2004 and May 29, 2004, it was decreed the dismissal of the suit, in two of them, by the application of the statute of limitations of the criminal action and in the other two, due to the lack of evidence to identify the responsible (supra para. 176, 244, 249 and 261) Moreover, in the investigations into the facts of March 1, 2004 (supra para. 256) the Public Prosecutor’s Office decreed the discontinuance without prejudice of the suit, and there is no record proving that the alleged victims exercised the corresponding right to object to such decision. 348. Section 120, subsection 8 of the COPP establishes that he who is considered a victim, though he is not the plaintiff, may object to the dismissal of the criminal proceeding. Moreover, pursuant to section 325 thereof, even in those cases there is no plaintiff, the victim may file a motion to appeal and writ of cassation against the decisions declaring the dismissal of the case. Moreover, sections 315 to 317 of the COPP governs the procedural figure of the discontinuance without prejudice, “when the result of the investigation is insufficient to bring charges" and also the right of the victim, who has intervened in the proceedings to request the reopening of the investigation and indicated the appropriate measures, and the right to address to the investigating judge in order to examine the grounds of the decision. 349. This Court considers that the power to file remedies against the decisions of the Attorney General’s Office or of the judicial authorities is a right of the victim, which 323 Section 6, Basic Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 300.