79 . several were discontinued (supra paras. 158, 163, 175, 180, and 252), four rejected (supra paras. 187, 195, 203, 211, and 215), two files (supra paras. 220 and 248), and there are several requests for discontinuance by the prosecutor of the case that are pending a judicial decision (supra paras. 167, 171, 191, and 199). In only one of the cases denounced was the alleged responsible individualized and a prosecutor’s accusation was presented (supra para. 207). On the other hand, from the claims of which copy of their investigations was not presented, it can be seen that three investigations are still in the preliminary phase (supra para. 240, 256, and 263), in another the discontinuance was requested (supra para. 228), and in another the procedural situation has not been determined (supra para. 183). 306. The Court was informed of other investigations related to facts not included in the factual framework of the application.319 Therefore, this Tribunal will not analyze them. 307. The Tribunal will proceed to analyze the diligences and pre-trial investigative procedures carried out regarding the facts denounced and investigated. C.ii.1 Changes in the assignment of the prosecutors’ office in charge of the criminal prosecution 308. As indicated, as of the first complaint filed on January 31, 2002 by the alleged victims before the Office of Common Crimes,320 successive complaints covering a large number of a different nature occurred between 2001 and 2004 were accumulated. 309. Regarding the initial complaint, on February 18, 2002 the 2º and 74º Sections of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, who had been jointy assigned the hearing of that complaint, ordered that the investigation be started.321 Said case was then transferred to the 68° Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. 310. The State indicated that in March 2005 the cases were lodged to the 50° Section of the National Public Prosecutors’ Office with Full Jurisdiction at a National Level, 322 which ordered “the organization of the totality of the actions received.” In June 2008, the hearing of said case had been transferred to the 32° Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. 311. Therefore, this case was successively assigned to different prosecutors’ offices. The number and frequency in the changes to the body in charge of the investigation is not favorable for its development and effectiveness. It has not been established that these changes obey to extraordinary motives that justify tem, and they have not been argued in this case. 319 Thus, in response to a request of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. #), the State informed regarding the investigations carried out with regard to the facts of September 2002 against Luisiana Ríos, September 19, 2002 against Anahis Cruz, and June 15, 2008 against Javier David García Flores (see report n˚DFGR-VFGR-DGAP-DPDF-08-PRO-66-10603-08 of October 23, 2008 and documents presented as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case.) 320 Cf. complaint filed before the Superior Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on January 31, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume V, folios 1475-1480). 321 Cf. report n° DFGR-20.402 of March 15, 2005 (dossier of Evidence, volume X, appendix A.6.10 to the response to the application, folio 3801); and request for discontinuance and dismissal by the 50° National Public Prosecutors’ Office with Full Jurisdiction of January 18, 2006 (dossier of evidence, volume XXVII, folios 94509468). 322 Cf. report n° DFGR-20.402 of March 15, 2005 (dossier of Evidence, volume X, appendix A.6.10 to the response to the application, folio 3801).