77 . certain physical attacks- they should be investigated diligently and effectively by the State and the procedural impulse corresponds to the Public Prosecutors’ Office. Other facts argued as violations to the Convention and denounced before the Public Prosecutors’ Office are within Venezuelan legislation crimes that may only be prosecuted in a private suit. 297. Article 301 of the COPP (2001) regulates the dismissal of the complaints or legal actions by the Public Prosecutors’ Office whenever, inter alia, said body has been informed of crimes that must be prosecuted in a private suit.315 Regarding the suppositions in which the facts denounced, which the State argued were crimes requiring a private suit, the Public Prosecutors’ Office was in the obligation to request the dismissal of the complaint to the control judge, pursuant with the aforementioned stipulation of the COPP. Thus, the omission of state authorities to issue a timely decision that clarified that the proceedings tried were not correct, either because the means used to inform the authority was not the one established in the domestic legal system or because the body before which the complaint or accusation was presented was not the competent one, would not allow or contribute to the determination of some facts and, in its case, of the corresponding criminal responsibilities.316 The State cannot justify its inactivity to carry out an investigation based on the grounds that the facts were not presented to the competent body through the proceedings stipulated in the domestic legislation, since the Public Prosecutors’ Office should at least requested the dismissal of the complaint if “after having started the investigation it determined that the facts object of the process were a crime that can only be prosecuted in a private suit.” 298. Regarding the arguments of the representatives (supra para. 294) the Court considers that the occurrence of a fact in a public location or its transmission by the media does not automatically grant it the nature of “public and notorious” for the effect of the handing down of justice. The body in charge of the criminal prosecution of a State does not necessarily have to act ex officio in those circumstances. It does not correspond to this Tribunal to verify if each of the facts argued by the representatives was broadcasted on the television or assess the criminal relevance or the possible meaning of each fact in order to determine the obligations of the Public Prosecutors’ Office to start ex officio the corresponding investigations. 299. There is an additional controversy between the parties regarding the way in which the Public Prosecutors’ Office should have proceeded with regard to the complaints covering several facts that would constitute both crimes of a public actions as will as illegal acts to be prosecuted in a private case or upon request of the party. 300. The representatives held that “all the complaints presented before the Public Prosecutors’ Office, included both facts with a criminal relevance (of public and private actions) along with the unit or criminal resolution, [in such a way] that by virtue of the connection between both criminal species made evident since the complaint itself and with the objective of achieving the unity of the proceedings, the Public Prosecutors’ Office is compelled to investigate their commission.” The State, as stated, indicated that the investigations of crimes of private action must be started by an accusation of the injured party, even though it also stated that, “the Public Prosecutors’ Office has collaborated with the victims in the investigation of the situations denounced.” 315 Thus, the mentioned rule states that “[t]he Public Prosecutors’ Office, within the fifteen days following the receipt of the complaint or criminal accusation, will ask the control judge, through a well-founded brief, its dismissal, when the fact does not enjoy a criminal nature or whose action has evidently expired, or there is a legal obstacle for the development of the proceedings. Procedures will be carried out pursuant with the stipulation of this Article if after the investigation has been started it were determined that the facts object of the proceedings constitute a crime that may only be prosecuted upon request of the injured party.” 316 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 49, paras. 79 through 81.