81 . 318. The Court observes that the investigation of the facts of May 2 nd and 28, 2002 was ordered by the Public Prosecutors’ Office two years after the complaint was filed and the State took more than six years to perform the first investigative actions, without justifying the delay in the recollection of evidence tending to prove the existence of the fact and the identification of the perpetrators and participants (supra paras. 187 and 195). Regarding some facts in which an investigation was started, procedural inactivity for periods of between two and a half and six years that was not justified by the State was proven (supra paras. 158, 168, 171, 183, 191, 199, 203, 211, and 216). This Tribunal considers that the investigations corresponding to these facts, have not been carried out in a diligent and effective manner. C.ii.3 Lack of diligence in the performance of a legal medical evaluation 319. This Court has stated that, “the authority in charge of the investigation shall make sure that the required diligences are carried out and, if this does not occur, it shall adopt the appropriate measures pursuant with the domestic legislation.”326 320. Regarding the fact of August 19, 2003 the legal medical evaluation required to determine the existence of injuries and their seriousness was not performed. 321. In cases of physical attacks the moment at which the medical evaluation is performed is crucial in conclusively determining the existence of the injury and the damage.327 The lack of an evaluation or its delayed execution make it difficult or impossible to determine the seriousness of the facts, especially, in order to legally classify the behavior under the corresponding criminal definition, even more so when there is no additional evidence. The Court considers that the State has the obligation to proceed with the examination and classification of the injuries when the complaint is filed and the injured party is presented, unless the time that has gone by between this and the moment in which the event occurred makes their characterization impossible. 322. In those cases in which the legal medical evaluation was not performed, the complaint was filed a few days later and despite this the diligence was not ordered. The State did not provide enough evidence to prove that the Public Prosecutors’ Office had performed the appropriate diligences, which allows us to conclude that thre was a lack of diligence of the body in charge of the criminal prosecution in what refers to its duty to carry out a diligent and effective investigation. C.ii.4 Decisions of discontinuance and prosecutorial filing in relation to the lack of appeal or the request to reopen by the claimants 323. The State argued that the Venezuelan criminal prosecution system enables the Public Prosecutors’ Office to order the filing of the actions when the result of the latter is insufficient to present an accusation and to request discontinuance. In this case, these actions of the Public Prosecutors’ Office have been well founded and justified. The alleged victims did not exercise the remedies established in the Venezuelan legal system to question acts of dismissal, filing, and discontinuances, as corresponds, by the Public Prosecutors’ Office or the competent jurisdictional body. 326 327 Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 53, para. 112. Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 38, para. 93, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 111.