91 the Attorney General’s Office inasmuch as there is no evidence on record that an investigation has been conducted. C.ii Criminal investigations regarding 19 of the facts 322. It spring from the documentation furnished by the parties that by the time this Judgment is rendered, of the 19 investigations opened, four of them were dismissed, one was discontinued and there are three requests for dismissal filed by the prosecutor of the case that are pending judicial decision (infra para. 344 and 347). 323. In none of the reported cases the responsible have been determined and, where applicable, the imposition of a punishment to the perpetrators of the reported incidents has not been established. 324. There is no documentation on record proving that other investigations have been initiated regarding the reported facts, which are within the factual framework of the application. 325. Therefore, this Tribunal shall now analyze the proceedings and inquiries conducted regarding the reported and investigated facts and the procedure followed before the Ombudsman. C.ii.1 Changes in the assignment of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the criminal prosecution 326. According to information provided, as of the first complaint lodged on January 31, 2002 by reporters and others employees of Globovisión with the National Directorate of Common Crimes312, other subsequent complaints, centered on a great number of different incidents that occurred between 2001 and 2005, were consolidated with the case. 327. In response to the initial complaint, on February 18, 2002, both the 2º and 74º Public Prosecutor's Office of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area, to which the hearing of the complaint has been jointly assigned, ordered the opening of investigations313. Then, on March 10, 2003 the employees of Globovisión lodged an expansion of the complaint with the 2º Public Prosecutor’s Office314. 328. On February 27, 2004 the then Director of Common Crimes assigned such investigation to the 68º Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area315. In the brief submitted on October 26, 2004 before the said Public Prosecutor’s Office, the alleged victims repeated and updated the complaints for the attacks 312 Cf. Complaint lodged with the National Directorate of Common Crimes on January 31, 2002 (records of evidence, volume IV, and appendix to the complaint 7, pages 931-963). 313 Cf. court order issued by the 2º and 74º Public Prosecutor’s Office of Caracas Metropolitan Area of February 18, 2002 (records of evidence, volume XXX, page 7674; volume XXXII, pages 8178 and 8376) 314 Cf. Complaint lodged with the 2º Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area of March 10, 2003 (records of evidence, volume IV, appendix 8 to the application, pages 965-975). 315 Cf. Official letter Nº DDC-R-9800 sent to the 68º Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area on February 27, 2004 (records of evidence, volume XXX, page 7675; volume XXXII, pages 8179, 8258 and 8381).