10 Regarding item “a” of the prayer for relief included in the application against the State filed before the Court by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, [...] though after the events occurred, the competent local authorities started an investigation, up to this date, there have not been any precise results that may lead to establish the identity of those responsible for the crimes, nor the manner in which the events occurred; there also exists a delay which the State acknowledges and regrets; Regarding item “b” of the prayer for relief included in the application, [...] by the time the events occurred, the situation in the Retén e Internado Judicial de “los Flores de Catia” (Judicial Detention Center of the Flores of Catia) showed serious flaws, which became worse due to the facts occurred on November 27, 1992, when there was a civil riot extending nationwide which influenced the disorder occurred amongst the detainees. In this sense, the [...] Venezuelan State alleges that it is currently developing public policies tending to improve the situation at the penitentiaries, and points out the Executive Order on Penitentiary System Emergency; the Penitentiary System Humanization Programme and the promotion and dissemination through workshops, of the [h]uman [r]ights of persons deprived of their liberty. However, the State acknowledges that by the time the sad events occurred, the situation at the Retén e Internado Judicial de “los Flores de Catia” (Judicial Detention Center of the Flores of Catia) was precarious. Regarding item “c” of the prayer for relief included in the application, [...] although it is true, there is a delay in the judicial investigation due to the criminal procedural system in force at the time the events occurred, since given the fact that the investigation was at the investigative stage, the access to the records of the case by the victims was legally limited. By that time, the Código de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (Code of Criminal Procedure) established the secrecy of the records, and this prevented the parties from getting information about their situation. After the Código Orgánico Procesal Penal (Organic Code of Criminal Procedure) was in force, this situation was corrected, as stated in section 280, by allowing the parties to freely access the records of the case [,and] (bold type omitted) as regards to item “d” of the prayer for relief included in the application, it is admitted that by the time the events occurred, the legislation in force allowed the courts having special jurisdiction, such as the military courts, to hear cases related to the violation of human rights. Despite that, currently, after the Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela (Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) came in force in 1999, these matters are subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts as stated by section 25 eiusdem, upon stating that regarding the violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, the same shall be investigated and prosecuted in the ordinary courts. Thus, any possibility for court of special jurisdiction to hear cases of such nature has been eliminated. This further evidences that the legislative change requested by the Inter-American Commission on human rights was taken into account. 46. On the other hand, the Court notices that the State made several statements during the pendency of this case before the Inter-American Commission, which have been considered as acts of acknowledgement of its international responsibility for the events and the violations to human rights alleged by the petitioners. In its application, the Commission requested the Court “to take into account the acknowledgement of the facts and the assumption of responsibility” made by the State, and further that the same be included in the corresponding judgment. In its final written arguments, the Commission pointed out that the admission made by the State before the Court amounts to a ratification and extension of the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State during the pendency of this case before the Commission on October 1, 1999, March 3, 2000 and March 27, 2003.” 47. Indeed, on March 3, 2000, during the pendency of the instant case before the Commission, Venezuela acknowledged its international responsibility at a conference held between the State, the petitioners and the representatives of the Inter-