75 . Office or their investigation was started ex officio by it.307 None of the criminal accusations presented before the Public Prosecutors’ Office refers to the forwarding of official letters by CONATEL to RCTV or the interruptions of the signal of that station.308 290. Before a request for evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 18), the State indicated “in what refers to the cases that are still in their Preparation Phase, [the Public Prosecutors’ Office] does not reveal the investigation records to third parties until said stage has ended, thus only the parties have access to them.” Similarly, the State has informed with regard to some actions, but it has not provided copy of them, and there are other facts it has not even referred to or provided any evidence. The Tribunal may consider as established only those facts that are verifiable through the evidence the State has refused to forward (supra paras. 97 through 100). 291. Given the characteristics of these facts, taking into account that one of the relevant matters of the controversy on which the parties have made emphasis is that the complaints and investigations carried out within criminal proceedings, it is necessary to specify under which circumstances the State could be demanded, pursuant with its domestic legislation, to carry out an investigation ex officio in an effective and diligent manner in order to guarantee the affected rights. C.i The criminal action in Venezuelan investigation of some of the facts denounced legislation and the lack of 292. The State indicated that the Commission left out of the controversy that the claimants themselves acknowledged that many of the facts stated were alleged insults that pursuant with Venezuelan legislation, are crimes punishable only in a private suit. This implies that the alleged victims had the duty to file the corresponding accusations. It also mentioned that the Public Prosecutors’ Office has done everything possible in order to clarify the facts that constitute crimes of a public action, even those of which is was informed by the victims or their representatives. 293. The Commission argued that every time a crime that can be prosecuted ex officio is committed, the State has the obligation to promote and impulse the criminal proceedings up to their final consequences and that, in those cases, it constitutes the best way to clarify the facts, prosecute those responsible, and establish the corresponding criminal punishments, besides offering other forms of reparation. 294. The representatives held that the complaints were filed before the Public Prosecutors’ Office, who as the “only directing body of the investigation and holder of the public criminal action in Venezuela and director of the investigation, […] is the body competent to order the start of the corresponding criminal investigation.” They argued that the majority of the cases deal with criminal acts of public knowledge that were broadcasted by different members of the media while they were happening; therefore they are notorious facts that should have been investigated ex officio by the Public Prosecutors’ Office, even when they were not denounced by the alleged victims, by virtue, of the principle of officialdom that governs the exercise of criminal action by the Public Prosecutors’ Office. Likewise, they stated that “the different criminal figures object of the complaints in question constitute crimes of a public action, not only according to the Criminal Code, with the exception of the crimes of threats, libel and slander, but also because they are all crimes against human 307 Regarding three of the facts – specifically, of April 19, 2002, December 4, 2002, and January 27, 2002 – even though the representatives indicated they presented a complaint they have not provided a copy of the same. 308 Except the fact of April 13, 2002, which was denounced even though regarding everything that happened on that day.