15 certain number of years; or that no proceeding was instituted or no investigation carried out or that there was delay in such proceeding or investigation; or that no medical-legal evaluation was performed in certain cases; or that there were unwarranted delays in the delivery of certain decisions by the authorities in charge of the criminal prosecution, based on the fact that there was no sufficient evidence in the investigation. (See, paragraphs 167, 172, 183, 187, 191, 195, 199, 215, 220, 224, 228, 232, 236, 240, 244, 248, 252, 256, and 263 of the judgment). In light of the foregoing, it would seem evident the unremarkably efficiency and effectiveness of the Venezuelan judicial system and as a result, it would seem appropriate the decision contained in the judgment regarding the non-compliance with the duty to guarantee the rights enshrined in Articles 13(1) and 5(1) of the Convention, considering such ineffectiveness. Nevertheless, as shall be analyzed infra, that must not have been a determining factor in the decision. d) When discussing, in this subchapter, the violation of the mental and moral integrity of the alleged victims, even when the Court disregards the expert examination represented by the psychological evaluation made by Magdalena López, it determines – presumably, based on the experience inasmuch as there is no evidence that would allow to scientifically come to the conclusion of the sentencing majority- that, by virtue of the fact that the alleged victims were subjected to hindrances, aggressions, threats, acts of harassment and intimidation during their jobs, the State is responsible of the obligation to guarantee the right to mental and moral integrity of the victims mentioned. (Paragraph 273). I presume that this decision was made because the State exposed the alleged victims to a situation of relative vulnerability as well as due to the lack of effectiveness of the system and the Venezuelan judiciary. Considering that there is no reasoning for the conclusion that the sentencing majority came to, we must ratify that the causal link is very weak or nonexistent as has been analyzed supra. Lastly and following the order mentioned, I note in the third subchapter that: a) It highlights to whom dissent, that the Court after analyzing the arguments of the State where other existing legal actions where referred (para. 286) concluyes that the parties have emphasized in the controversy taken to this Court in the denounces and investigations, resulting in an analysis regarding the existing resources inside the legal grounds (in paragraph 291), to a point of trying to assume that the control of the actions of Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) had to be done before the Public Ministry. I ratify what is said supra regarding the non existence of congruency between the pretentions brought before the Inter-American System of protection and the domestic remedies that had to be exhausted in order to access it; for a judge acting in legal competence in Venezuela cannot pronounce in the regard that if CONATEL denounced actions violated or not the freedom of expression, and declare the victims as injured. These actions are up for revision through the actions and administrative contentious resources in the Venezuelan juridical order or through constitutional actions. b) By considering that the criminal proceedings were not suitable or sufficient, as has been pointed out supra, the Court only analyzed the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal proceedings to prove – mistakenly, in my opinion- that if the State’s