22. With regard to Article 5 of the Convention, the Petitioners first allege that the verbal attacks by the President and other high officials constitute violations of the American Convention in and of themselves. They argue that Article 5 of the Convention protects the right to "moral integrity," and that their "moral integrity" is violated by the offensive statements. Furthermore, they allege that the State has violated this right by encouraging its supporters to verbally and physically assault Globovisión employees, threaten them with blunt implements, make death threats against them, and humiliate them. In addition to damaging their physical integrity, the fact that they are unable to exercise their profession freely damages their mental and moral integrity. 23. With regard to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the Petitioners allege that the State has violated their rights to a fair trial and judicial protection by failing to carry out a serious and exhaustive investigation of the above-detailed incidents. Furthermore, the acts of aggression against the employees of Globovisión constitute crimes; the Public Ministry is the sole entity that can bring public penal actions and its failure to do so in the case of theGlobovisión employees leaves them in a completely defenseless state. 24. The Petitioners also allege that there is a lack of independence in the judicial branch and the Public Ministry that has prevented the Petitioners from having their rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection protected. This lack of independence further extends to notaries public, who are dependents of the Ministry of Interior and Justice and who have, on numerous occasions, refused to authenticate documents submitted by the Petitioners without any legal basis for doing so. 25. The Petitioners further state that the State has incurred in a violation of its general obligations to respect and guarantee the human rights protected under the American Convention, as required by Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. These general obligations include both the duty of State agents to refrain from actions that violate human rights protected under the Convention and the responsibility of the State to prevent or investigate and punish human rights violations committed by private individuals. As previously stated, the Petitioners believe that the perpetrators of the acts of aggression should be considered "state agents" because they acted with the support and encouragement of the government. They also allege that the lack of a serious investigation of the incidents and the failure of the State to bring any of the perpetrators to justice indicates a violation by the State of its duty to give legal effect to the rights protected under the Convention, as required by Article 2. 26. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Petitioners allege that on January 31, 2002, they denounced the aggressions to which they had been subjected prior to that date before the Attorney General's Office, in order that the Public Ministry could carry out an investigation to sanction those responsible. At the same time, the Commission issued precautionary measures, which further emphasized the call to the State to investigate these incidents. After the initial complaint to the Attorney General's Office, the Petitioners proceeded to denounce subsequent incidents of aggression against Globovisión either the day the incident occurred or, at the latest, the day after the occurrence. Nevertheless, the Petitioners allege that there has been no investigation, few individuals have been questioned by the Public Ministry, and no one has been charged in connection with any of the incidents. They state that because only the Public Ministry can initiate investigations in "public action" crimes, such as the majority of the ones committed against Globovisión, this petition falls under one of the exceptions to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention states that a victim is excused from the requirement of showing exhaustion of domestic remedies if "the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them." B. Position of the State 27. There was no response from the State regarding the admissibility of the petition. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY 6