85 the three domestic courts that heard the case, because “[t]he information provided showed that the prosecutor examined the criminal complaint filed by RCTV almost immediately and that RCTV was able to appeal the prosecutor’s decision to seek dismissal of the complaint and even filed a remedy of cassation with the Supreme Court, all within the space of five months.” 289. The representatives argued that the “fact that the prosecutor had examined the case and the same day requested the presiding judge to dismiss the complaint is sufficient to demonstrate that he did not conduct any kind of investigation into the complaint filed.” The representatives also argued that “[e]very investigation must be exhaustive, sufficient and pertinent, as required by domestic and international law; [in this case,] it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that it was carried out on the same day; this constitutes a denial of justice and results in the ineffectiveness of the judicial remedy that was filed because, even though it was established by law, it did not constitute a guarantee of a hearing when seeking judicial protection.” The representatives also indicated that “[t]he facts reported merited an exhaustive criminal investigation because they could constitute the offenses of procedural fraud or deception, which would also involve the perpetration of the offense of generic abuse of authority.” 290. Lastly, the representatives concluded that “[t]he prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service failed to conduct an investigation and the only actions taken by the State had the sole purpose of dismissing the complaint. In this case, the competent authorities failed to comply with their obligation to investigate acts of which they were aware that violated the right to property, and that are defined as actionable offenses.” 291. The State argued that “the presiding judge […] decided, based on the opinion of the Public Prosecution Service and after examining the facts presented, that they were not criminal in nature. Therefore, pursuant to article 301 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, she declared that the complaint was dismissed.” A.3.2. Considerations of the Court 292. The Court recalls que RCTV327 filed a criminal complaint requesting the opening of an investigation into offenses against its property and other offenses established in the AntiCorruption Law (supra para. 114). The prosecutor in charge of the complaint requested the dismissal of the case and the court that heard the case declared the request admissible and decided to close the investigation. 293. The Court notes that the criminal complaint was dismissed by the 51st Court of the Caracas District at the prosecutor’s request. RCTV filed an appeal with the Appellate Court, which ratified the dismissal and rejected the appeal. RCTV therefore filed a remedy of cassation before the SCJ Criminal Cassation Chamber and this was also dismissed (supra para. 116). The Cassation Chamber agreed with the opinion of the court that had heard the case previously and found that “when the courts exercise their function to hear cases submitted to their consideration […], they do not commit a fraudulent action, [so that] the presumed perpetration of the wrongful act of procedural fraud has not been constituted” and that “when examining a conduct that does not reveal the perpetration of an act of a criminal nature, the legally established action is not to open or continue an investigation.”328 The Court notes that the The complaint was filed by Oswaldo José Quintana Cardona in his capacity as “legal representative” of RCTV (evidence file, folio 3721). 327 Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Case No. C09-005. Decision No. 195 of May 7, 2009 (evidence file, volume XXIV, folio 26025). 328