9 . 32. The aforementioned was considered by the Court in its Order of October 18, 2007 (supra para. 8), where it decided that the State’s request did not constitute a preliminary objection strictly speaking. However, it considered it appropriate to make a decision in this regard as a prior matter in order to continue processing the case. By virtue of the considerations stated in the Order itself, and in the light of the elements of judgment it had, the Court considered the State’s mentioned request inadmissible. However, it analyzed a request of self-disqualification presented by Judge García-Sayán, with regard to his interest that “the perception of absolute independence of the Tribunal not be affected in any way and in order to avoid any distraction to the Tribunal’s attention on matters that tear it away from hearing the merits of the matters presented to it.” The Court considered it reasonable to accept the Judge García-Sayán’s request and his self-disqualification.25 Therefore, the arguments presented by the State, which are not a preliminary objection, were already solved by the Court in the mentioned Order. Thus, the first preliminary objection filed by the State is inadmissible. B) SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Lack of exhaustion of the domestic remedies”. 33. The State argued that even though the alleged victims have used the domestic remedies established by the Venezuelan legal system, by turning to the Public Prosecutors’ Office to file the corresponding complaints for the alleged violations to their constitutional rights, those complaints are subject to their processing in different phases, and therefore, in any case it would correspond to the courts of justice of Venezuela to issue, when the time comes, the corresponding decisions. The State argued that the start of the corresponding investigations on the facts on which the commission of the illicit facts has been presumed had been expressly ordered in each and every case where the employees of the private company RCTV appear as possible victims. The State acknowledged that it is its duty to indicate the domestic remedies that must be exhausted and in this sense it stated that, pursuant with the stipulations of the Venezuelan Organic Code of Criminal Procedures, the alleged victims of facts that constitute crimes have at their disposal a set of procedural remedies to assert their rights, when they consider that the actions carried out by the Public Prosecutors’ Office constitute a violation of their interests or a failure to comply with its constitutional and legal duties. Specifically, the State referred to the remedies and the procedural budgets available to question decisions of dismissal, filing by the prosecutor, and discontinuance of the case, and argued that none of the alleged victims had filed them, thus it considers that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted and it requested that the application be declared inadmissible. 34. Subsequently, in its final written arguments, the State also argued that in the cases of alleged verbal attacks (threats, libel and slander) and damages to the property, given that these are crimes of a private prosecution the alleged victims should have turned directly to the trial court and legally filed a private accusation, since the Public Prosecutors’ Office is prevented from investigating these crimes ex officio. Similarly, the State mentioned, regarding the official speeches broadcasted pursuant with Article 192 of the Organic Law of Telecommunications, that the alleged victims had the right to resort to the corresponding jurisdictional bodies to request the nullity of said law, pursuant with the stipulations of Article 112 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice and Article 21 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, an appropriate domestic remedy that had not been exhausted. Likewise, with regard to the official letters forwarded by the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) (hereinafter “CONATEL”) to RCTV, the Upon accepting the excuse presented by Judge Diego García-Sayán, the Court also ordered that the present case continue to be heard, up to its conclusion, with the composition of the Tribunal that is currently issuing this Judgment. Cf. Order issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on October 18, 2007. 25