16 organs acted according to the terms of the COPP (Basic Code of Criminal Procedure)22 the results of this case would be different. c) The judgment even analyzes the lack of action on the part of the State during the criminal proceedings to conclude that such inactivity led to a detrimental act for the victims. In fact, it was mentioned that the Attorney General’s Office had to request the dismissal of the complaints in case that after the opening of the investigation, it was determined that the facts of this case constituted a crime that needed to be prosecuted at the request of a party, in accordance with section 301 of the COPP of 2001. It is necessary to emphasize that two sections of that instrument are in conflict with this decision: sections 24 and 25. 23 To base the decision to condemn the State24 on the inactivity of the Attorney General’s Office by not having requested the dismissal according to section 301 ejusdem, means not doing a full interpretation of the code in question and not understanding that the private individuals should have, in that situation and according to the two sections mentioned, directly resorted to the judicial authorities. Moreover, this requirement is also based (paragraph 301 and 302) on the mistaken interpretation of section 75 of the COPP, 25 by understanding from that, the burden that lies on the State to produce all the measures of evidence necessary and to investigate the complaints with due diligence, concluding that the judicial authorities did not decide on the application of the rules on connection, neither they delivered decisions, except for some cases, that clarified whether the channel chosen was the appropriate one (paragraph 303). The truth is that said section deals with the ancillary jurisdiction for the case in which a same person is held responsible for the commission of a publicly actionable crime and a crime prosecutable at the request of a party, determining that the case shall be heard by the court competent to try the publicly actionable crime and the rules of ordinary procedure shall govern. The rule 22 Cf. para. 310 to 312 of the judgment from which I dissent. 23 “Article 24. Exercise. The criminal action must be instituted by the Attorney General's Office ex officio, unless it may be only be instituted by the victim or at the victim's request". The emphasis is mine. “Section 25. Offenses that can be prosecuted in a private suit. The victim can only institute the actions resulting from crimes that the law establishes as offenses prosecutable in a private suit. Moreover, the prosecution shall be conducted pursuant to the special procedure regulated by this Code. Nevertheless, for those offenses that can be prosecuted in a private suit as established in Chapters I, II and III, Title VIII, Second Book of the Criminal Code, it would be enough the accusation brought before the Public Prosecutor Office or before the competent police division of criminal investigations, made by the victim or its legal representatives or guardians, if the victim were incompetent, without prejudice to the terms established by special laws”. Where the victim is not able to bring an accusation or suit by itself, due to its age or mental condition, or if the victim has no legal representation, or if such representation is not competent, the Attorney General's Office has the obligation to institute the criminal action. The pardon, dismissal or waiver of the victim shall end the proceeding, unless the victim was a minor (less than 18 years of age). 24 Para. 304 of the judgment from which I dissent. 25 “Section 75. Ancillary Jurisdiction. “If any of the related crimes corresponds to the competence of an ordinary court and other crimes to the competence of special courts, the case shall be heard by the ordinary criminal court”. When a same person is responsible for the commission of a publicly actionable crime and a crime prosecutable at the request of the aggrieved party, the case shall be heard by the court competent to try the publicly actionable crime and the rules of ordinary procedure shall govern”.