93 334. The expert witness Arteaga stated that “the Venezuelan criminal procedure does not provide for a definite duration term” and he specified that “in accordance with the provisions of section 313 of the Basic Code of Criminal Procedure, the Attorney General’s Office is bound to conclude [the investigative phase] with the due diligence the case so requires that, at his entire discretion, should be in a maximum of six months, depending on the complexity of the case”319. 335. In such respect, this Tribunal notes that in none of the proceedings instituted in relation to the facts of this case, the State has identified a person as the accused and that the criminal procedure legislation of Venezuela does not provide a precise term for the investigation, prior identification of the accused; otherwise, it establishes that the investigation shall be conducted “with the due diligence the case so requires” (supra para. 333). Therefore, the moment in which the Attorney General’s Office took cognizance of the case, ex officio or at the request of a party, is relevant to evaluate whether the investigations were conducted with diligence. 336. The multiple facts jointly reported could have contributed to turn the investigation into a complex one, in general terms, even though each fact in particular was not necessarily complex to be investigated. Besides, most of the facts occured in circumstances in which it was difficult to identify the alleged perpetrators. As to the conduct of the interested parties, this Tribunal emphasized that many of the facts were reported several weeks, months or even years after the incidents occurred (supra para. 318 to 320). 337. The Court notes that regarding nine of the facts that were investigated, there is evidence of procedural inactivity during periods of three and six years (supra para. 176, 183, 187, 196, 204, 209, 213, 225 and 231), and the State has not explained or justified such delay. As to six of the investigated facts (supra para. 196, 204, 209, 213, 231 and 235) the State took more than four years in carrying out the first proceedings, without justifying the delay in the gathering of evidence tending to the verification of the materiality of the fact and the identification of the perpetrators and accomplices. This Tribunal finds that the investigations related to the facts reported on January 31, 2002 and those that were consolidated to this case, have not been conducted in a diligent and effective way. C.ii.3 Lack of diligence in the development of some investigations 338. The Court has held that “the authority in charge of the investigation must ensure that all necessary investigative steps are undertaken and must take appropriate action, in accordance with domestic legislation, when this does not occur”320. 339. In a series of facts reported to be physical attacks (supra para. 172, 176, 179, 187, 204, 244, 252 and 256), no legal-medical evaluation was conducted in order to establish the existence the injuries and the seriousness thereof. 340. In cases of torture or mistreatment, the time elapsed till the performance of the pertinent medical examinations is essential in order to unquestionably determine the existence of the damage321. The lack of such examination or its late performance hinders or 319 Cf. expert report (in the form of affidavit) rendered by Alberto Arteaga Sánchez on April 8, 2008 (records of evidence, volume XXXIII, pages 8528-8529). 320 Case of García Prieto et al. V. El Salvador, supra note 48. para 112. 321 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of Bayarri V. Argentina, supra note 22, para. 93; Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 111.