80 . C.ii.2 Procedural inactivity of the Public Prosecutors’ Office in some cases 312. The representatives held that the actions of the Public Prosecutors’ Office were negligent throughout the course of the criminal proceedings; that the alleged victims did not only request investigative diligences but they also provided all available evidence; and in most of the cases the Public Prosecutors’ Office did not carry out the investigation or it abandoned it after performing the first diligences. They also argued that in order to consider that the State has complied with its obligation to investigate in those cases where a person has not been convicted, the first has the burden of proof in demonstrating that it has carried out an immediate, thorough, and fair investigation. 313. The State held that every complaint had been processed, evidence had been collected, the state investigation apparatus has been put in motion, and there had been the always responsible activity of the Public Prosecutors’ Office and the other State agents; therefore it is false that it has not acted with due diligence. 314. With regard to the duration of the preliminary or investigation phase, Article 313 of the COPP states that “the Public Prosecutors’ Office will try to conclude the preliminary phase with the diligence required by the case. Six months after the individualization of the accused party, the latter may require that the control judge set a prudential term, of no less than thirty days or more than one hundred and twenty days, for the conclusion of the investigation.”323 315. The expert Arteaga stated that “Venezuelan criminal proceedings do not have an expressly defined term of duration,” and he specified that, “in [his] opinion, it should be a maximum of around six months, depending on the complexity of the case.” 324 Similarly, the expert Berrizbeitia stated that, “there is no legally pre-established time period in which the investigations must be concluded, but there is the requirement of the legislator to proceed with the diligence and speed the case requires, avoiding undue delays. The Organic Law of the Public Prosecutors’ Office imposes upon the prosecutors the duty to exercise their authorities without any more formalities than those established in the Constitution and the laws of the Republic, guaranteeing the prevalence of justice through means that imply simplification, effectiveness and speed.”325 316. This Tribunal points out that Venezuelan legislation on criminal procedures does not establish a specific term for the investigation prior to the individualization of the accused party, but instead it requires that it be carried out “with the diligence the case requires” (supra para. 314). Therefore, the moment at which the Public Prosecutors’ Office became aware of the fact, ex officio or through a complaint, is relevant in evaluating if the investigations were carried out diligently. 317. The plurality of the facts denounced jointly could have contributed to making the investigation complex in global terms, even though the investigation of each individual fact did not necessarily imply a greater complexity. Additionally, the majority of the facts occurred in circumstances where it was difficult to identify the alleged perpetrators. With regard to the behavior shown by the interested parties, the facts were denounced diligently, little after they occurred. 323 Organic Code of Criminal Procedures, supra note 310. 324 Cf. expert opinion offered by Alberto Arteaga Sánchez before notary public (affidavit) on April 8, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVI, folios 5510e-5510f). 325 Cf. expert opinion offered by Pedro Berrizbeitia Maldonado before notary public (affidavit) on July 15, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5709).