96 represents a positive progress in the Venezuelan legislation324, however, said power does not exonerate the State from its obligation to carry out a diligent and effective investigation in the corresponding cases. The lack of objection to a judicial decision or the lack of a request to reopen the case does not change the fact that the State has failed to comply with some duties related to the development of diligent measures of investigation. C.iii Procedure before the Ombudsman 350. The Commission alleged that the State also received express notification of the alleged acts of harassment and attack from the complaints submitted to the Ombudsman. 351. The representatives alleged that the attacks would have been timely reported and brought to the attention of the Ombudsman. In an “additional brief” (supra para. 8, 51 and 52) the representatives mentioned that on February 1, 2002 reporters and other employees of Globovisión filed a complaint with the Ombudsman in order for it to take the measures necessary to ensure their rights, in accordance with the provisions of Article 281 of the Constitution. They pointed out that such complaint was expanded on March 13 and April 24, that same year, based on the attacks they were subjected to. They further alleged that the Ombudsman limited to take down the statements of several reporters and other employees and, more than five years after the submission of the complaint, the Ombudsman concluded that such complaint should be set aside without showing any type of results. The representatives argued that the Ombudsman would have denied access to the case files and also, to the copies of the case file when they requested it. 352. The State, in the final arguments, confirmed that it was notified of alleged attacks committed against reporters by means of several complaints filed with different state authorities, one of them the Ombudsman. In order to prove that it had implemented protective measures in favor of the reporters of Globovisión, the State alleged that it had organized several meetings of police coordination in order to implement security assistance within the framework of the demonstrations and that in such meetings, the Ombudsman had participated. 353. The Ombudsman is an organ of the Civic Power. The Constitution establishes that the “Civic Power” has functioning, financial and administrative autonomy325 and that is in charge of promoting, defending and securing the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Constitution and international human rights treaties, apart from the legitimate, collective and diffuse interests of the citizens326. 324 Section 328 of the COPP (2000) provided that the Attorney General’s Office and the victim are able to file an appeal against the decision to dismiss the case; however, section 117, subsection 8 of the COPP (2000) subjected the power to object to such dismissal to the Prosecutor’s appeal. 325 Cf. Article 273 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, supra note 299. 326 Cf. Article 280 of the National Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In the exercise of those functions, the powers of the Ombudsman include, inter alia, the power to “safeguard the correct functioning of the public services, to support and protect the legitimate, collective and diffuse rights and interests of the people, against all arbitrary treatment, misuse of power and errors committed when providing those rights and interests, adopting, where applicable, the measures necessary to demand from the State the compensation for damages caused as a result of the functioning of those public services; to urge the Prosecutor or the Office of Prosecutors General of the Republic to proceed with the appropriate actions or motions against public officials responsible for the violation of human rights". Cf. section 281 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, supra note 299.