74 . 286. The State pointed out that there are other remedies within the Venezuelan legal system that do not imply criminal proceedings that could have been effective in guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression in this case. With regard to the official speeches broadcasted according to Article 192 of the Organic Law of Telecommunications, it mentioned that an appeal for annulment of that law should have been filed, pursuant with 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. Likewise, it held that the writ of amparo stipulated in the Organic Law of Amparo for Constitutional Rights and Guarantees constitutes a quick and effective remedy for the questioning of official letters from CONATEL referred to by the Commission and representatives as violating Articles 13(1) and 13(3) of the Convention (infra paras. 352 through 361). 287. A relevant aspect of the controversy the parties have made emphasis on is the complaints and investigations carried out in criminal proceedings. The Commission mentioned in its application the existence of 14 criminal investigations regarding the facts of the present case304 and of four investigations regarding statements made by the President of the Republic.305 288. The Court observes that the criminal accusations presented before the Public Prosecutors’ Office with regard to facts object of the present case, argued as constituting violations to Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, refer in the majority to alleged physical and verbal attacks against journalists and other employees, as well as damages to installations and properties of RCTV, many of which, as previously analyzed, constituted, in their totality, obstructions to the exercise of the right to seek, receive, and impart information of the alleged victims (supra paras. 264). Similarly, certain speeches of the President of the Republic were denounced before the Public Prosecutors’ Office. 306 289. Of the 40 facts mentioned in the application, including the statements of public officials, official letters from CONATEL, and interruptions to the signal of the station RCTV (infra paras. 352 through 394), 30 complaints were filed before the Public Prosecutors’ 304 Specifically: 1) and investigation based on the complaint filed on January 31, 2002 by Mr. Eduardo Sapene Granier, regarding two facts of alleged threats and violence against reporters who work for RCTV; additionally, the Commission stated that in “the same investigation process started based on that complaint another 16 incidents […] were denounced […];” 2) an investigation based on a complaint filed on May 6, 2002, for the violent protests carried out at RCTV headquarters on April 13, 2002; 3) another investigation regarding a complaint filed on March 12, 2002 for attacks suffered by Javier García, Isnardo Bravo, and David Pérez Hansen; 4) investigation regarding a complaint presented on April 4, 2002 for the facts occurred on April 3, 2002 in detriment of Isnardo Bravo, Wimer Marcano, and Winston Gutiérrez; 5) an investigation based on the complaint presented on May 7, 2002 for the violent facts against Isabel Mavarez; 6) an investigation based on the complaint presented on August 20, 2002 for the attacks suffered between August 13 and 15, 2002 by Laura Castellanos, David Pérez Hansen, and Argenis Uribe; 7) an investigation based on a complaint presented on November 21, 2002, for the infringements suffered by Mr. Armando Amaya; 8) an investigation regarding a complaint filed on August 26, 2003 for injuries suffered on August 19, 2003 by, among others, Carlos Colmenares and for attacks suffered by Noé Pernia on August 21, 2003; 9) an investigation regarding the facts occurred on March 3, 2004 against Carlos Colmenares; 10) an investigation regarding the facts occurred on March 3, 2004 against Isnardo Bravo; 11) an investigation regarding the facts occurred on March 3, 2004 against Anahís Cruz; 12) an investigation regarding the facts occurred on December 8, 2002 in detriment of Anahís Cruz and Herbigio Henríquez; 13) an investigation regarding the facts occurred on August 15, 2002 in detriment of Mr. Antonio Monroy; 14) an investigation regarding the facts occurred on June 3, 2004 against the headquarters of RCTV. 305 Specifically: 1) an investigation with regard to the statements of the President of June 9, 2002, for which on June 19, 2002 the head office of common crimes of the Solicitor General of the Republic was asked to order “the opening of an investigation”; 2) Another with the complaint presented by RCTV’s proxies on August 27, 2003; 3) a third related to a compliant filed on August 5, 2003; and 4) a fourth based on a complaint filed on August 15, 2003. 306 Cf. complaint presented on June 19, 2002 before the Head Office of Common Crimes for the speech of June 9, 2002 on the Program Aló Presidente No. 107 (dossier of Evidence, volume V, folios 1492-1495) and Complaint of August 27, 2003 (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folios 922-934).