50 . case is in its preliminary stage and that several diligences have been performed.158 This Court has not been able to clearly determine the current procedural situation of the case, or the diligences that have been performed, since the State did not provide greater information or copies of the dossier. In the terms indicated (supra paras. 97 through 100), it is not possible to determine the diligence of the State in this investigation (infra para. 318). 184. This Tribunal considers that sufficient elements have not been provided to consider the alleged facts as proven. * * * 185. The Commission argued that on May 2, 2002 the journalist Luisiana Ríos was threatened by “members and supporter of the ruling party” while she was covering a request made by Mr. Pedro Carmona at the Venezuelan Parliament; that the people who threatened her remained in the surrounding of the Legislative Palace; in fear of her integrity, Mrs. Ríos could not leave the building for more than three hours, since despite having asked the National Guards for help, they refused to get involved and she was finally helped by the Metropolitan Police. The representatives indicated that Mrs. Ríos was verbally attacked and threatened by “members of Bolivarian Circles and other supporters of the ruling party.” In its final arguments, the State indicated that the statements offered by Mrs. Ríos were contradictory with regard to the intervention of the members of the National Guard. 186. The Court verified that the statements of Mrs. Rios with regard to this fact, forwarded by the Commission159 and by the representatives,160 coincide with the version of the facts presented by the representatives, as well as with her sworn statement before the Court.161 187. These facts were denounced on May 28, 2002 by Luisiana Ríos before the Prefecture of the Libertador Municipality, civil head of the parish. The transcript of the complaint was presented before the 74° Public Prosecutor on June 7, 2002.162 On May 24, 2004 the 68° Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas ordered the start of the investigation regarding this fact and the one on May 28, 2002. The only diligence carried out was an interview with the victim on July 8, 2008. 163 On July 21, 2008 the 32° Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas with Full Jurisdiction requested the dismissal of the complaint “because the mentioned complaints refer to facts that constitute crimes that can only be prosecuted in a private suit.” 164 This was ordered on July 28, 2008 by the 51° First Instance Court of Control Tasks of the 158 Cf. Report n˚DFGR-VFGR-DGAP-DPDF-08-PRO-66-10603-08 of October 23, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XXVI, folio 9240). 159 Cf. statement of Luisiana Ríos of May 28, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume V, folio 1213). 160 Cf. statement of Luisiana Ríos (dossier of evidence, volume VIII, appendix 31 to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, folio 3141). 161 Cf. statement offered before a notary public (affidavit) by Luisiana Rios Paiva on June 25, 2007 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5598-5602) 162 Cf. Record of complaint No. 272 of May 28, 2002 and brief of June 7, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folios 1045-1047). 163 Cf. Transcript of the interview with Luisiana Rios before the 32° Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, dated July 8, 2008 (dossier of evidence, Volume XXI, folios 6498-6500). 164 Cf. Request for dismissal of July 21, 2008 by the 32° Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas with Full Jurisdiction (dossier of evidence, volume XXVII, folios 9485-9495).