6 victims' deprivation of liberty was in accordance with the law and there was a lack of factual elements required by the domestic legislation for it to apply. 28. It alleges that, contrary to the facts of the current petition, State liability only ensues in circumstances where deprivation of liberty is suffered for a length of time greater than that of the sentence, since the harm is caused due to the excessive delay in the resolution of cases. It alleges that the deprivation of liberty during a criminal trial is, in principle, lawful since it enables an investigation into the truth. It stresses that the very foundation of the criminal trial process permits, within reasonable limits, the deprivation of the liberty of individuals on trial, and that the detention of the alleged victims was in accordance with the principle of reasonableness. The State maintains that neither its responsibility, nor the compensation resulting therefrom, can be measured in the abstract, but in the light of the actual circumstances of each case, since the foundation of the right to compensation ought to be linked to the determination of the harm suffered. 29. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection, it argued that simply because the alleged victims disagreed with the domestic decisions, does not imply a violation of Article 25 of the Convention. The State stresses that the petitioners appealed to each judicial instance and had access to all domestic remedies, each time obtaining a decision of the competent courts. 30. The State alleges that the petitioners had the wrong attitude towards the mechanisms of domestic law, since the remedy invoked for the interpretation on a point of law "was not used to obtain from the Judicial Authorities a decision which would cover the contents and extent of the legal texts, but to quash the Court of Appeals' decision." Finally, it argues that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, since there still exists the possibility that the petitioners might correctly file the remedy for interpretation on a point of law, which had been declared inadmissible. 31. As regards the attack against Olimpíades Gonzáles occurring on September 19, 2001, the State alleges that there has been a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Specifically, it indicates that when the State became aware of the attack, it requested that the appropriate judge issue a tutela in favor of Olimpíades Gonzáles, and began an investigation, which was archived on June 13, 2002, by the Public Prosecutor. It indicates that Olimpíades Gonzáles requested that the investigation be reopened and revealed the name of his attacker (Roberto Meneses Fernández), so that the Public Prosecutor proceeded to reopen the investigation. It maintains that the person allegedly responsible for the attack was speedily brought before the competent court, which ordered, on July 28, 2004, a precautionary measure of periodical reporting before the judge. It indicates that the domestic remedy was thereby effective and appropriate for the protection of the victim. 32. With respect to Olimpíades Gonzáles' death, the State alleges that on December 11, 2006, it ordered the start of an investigation for the crimes against the individuals presumably committed by Hilario Segundo Fernández. It indicates that the Prosecutors of the Seventeenth National Level Public Prosecutors Office with Full Competence and the Eleventh of the Judicial District of the State of Zulia are in charge of this investigation. It alleges that a series of procedural steps have been taken, and that an arrest warrant has been issued against the alleged perpetrator.