14 The foregoing comments and observations in relation to the judgment from which I dissent, are facts that serve as the basis for the questioning about the service of administration of justice and the Venezuelan judicial system mentioned in the judgment in the subsequent subchapter, which deals with, as this subchapter did, the hindrance or inability of some employees of the media to do their jobs (final part of paragraph 160) corroborated by the lack of due diligence, the procedural inactivity, and the delay in the investigations. Following this line of thought, it should be mentioned that the second subchapter: a) Evidences the need to have produced the evidence invoked by the State by which it was determined or not the participation of the victims in the events mentioned or “that they took part of acts related to disorderly conducts” (paragraph 154) inasmuch as the representatives denied that the aggressions suffered by the alleged victims were the consequence of their own behavior (paragraph 153), even when, as it was mentioned, the State raised it as ground for exemption of liability. b) It is surprising to whom dissents, that even when the reason to accumulate the preliminary objection of exhaustion of domestic remedies, was that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations done by the State will implicate an evaluation of the defendant in relation to its obligation on the Convention (para. 40), later it is pointed out that the Court will not pronounce regarding the suitability and effectiveness of the measures of protection (para. 155), this declaration is done after I pointed that the order to adopt measures of protection does not show that the State has protected effectively the beneficiaries of these measures (para. 154). This sets evidence on the connection between the facts, the justice system (and inside this one the Venezuelan justice service), and all the above with judgment aproved by the majority. c) Systematically makes an analysis of each one of the facts, and the sentencing majority determined that third parties not related to the government carried out the activities that hindered the alleged victims from doing their jobs; following this line of thought, it concludes that because of the actions of the third parties, the State is not responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment. Regardless of this consideration, it is expressly mentioned that in most of the cases, there were actions and omissions attributable to the Venezuelan judicial system21 and the State did not justify it; for example, it was mentioned that: The Court notes an unwarranted procedural delay; or that there is no evidence proving that the State acted with due diligence in the development of the investigations or at the appropriate procedural time; or that the investigation lasted a certain period of time; or that it was ordered the investigation after certain time; or that the first measure was adopted after a 21 “Article 253. The power to administer justice derives from the citizens and is enforced on behalf o the Republic as mandated by law. The bodies of the Judiciary have the responsibility of hearing the cases and matters according to their jurisdiction, by means of the procedures determined by law and they must enforce and carry out their decisions. The judicial system is formed by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the other courts determined by law, the Attorney General of the Republic, the Public Defender, the criminal investigation divisions, the assistants and officers of justice, the penitentiary system, the alternative means of justice, the citizens who participate in th e administration of justice according to the law and the lawyers authorized to practice". The emphasis is mine.