actions having been exhausted [...] it seems appropriate and lawful to order the archive of the […] proceedings, without prejudice to their reopening if new facts come to light.” 90. Mrs. Moreno was informed of the archive of the case on November 28, 2006.40 91. On June 7, 2007 the attorneys of the Vicariate of Caracas representing Mrs. Moreno asked the Attorney General’s Office for a copy of the proceedings of the prosecutor’s file. 92. In a letter dated June 19, 2007 addressed to the 20th Public Prosecutor’s Office, Mrs. Moreno stated that she had been “personally informed by [...] the 83 rd Prosecutor’s Office [...] that the [20th] Prosecutor had ordered the closure of the investigation.” In the same letter, she requested that “the respective notification be issued as well as copy of the order to close the investigation in question.” To this end, she “ authorize[d] [an attorney …] who work[ed in…] the Apostolic Vicariate of Machiques to obtain the copies in question.” 93. On June 26, 2007 the 20th Prosecutor’s Office sent a letter to Mrs. Moreno, in response to a previous request from her, containing the notification slip dated November 28, sent by [the 20th Prosecutor’s Office] to [Mrs. Moreno] in which she was notified of the case closure ordered by [the 20th Prosecutor’s Office] in the [c]riminal [i]nvestigation under [number] 24-F20-817-2003. The same official letter stated that “for the purposes of effective notification of the victim [Mrs. Moreno]" the 20th Prosecutor’s Office “agreed to deliver the notification to [the name of the attorney who at the time was working in the Refugee Protection Unit] of the Apostolic Vicariate of Machiques.” 94. On at least two occasions, between August 2005 and February 2009, the representatives or attorneys of the Vicariate of Caracas requested from the authorities copies of records of the domestic proceedings; however, these were not provided.41 95. On September 29, 2008 and February 4, 2009 the attorneys of the Vicariate of Caracas, who represented Mrs. Moreno, again requested the Attorney General’s Office to provide a copy of the minutes of the prosecutor’s file.42 Mrs. Moreno obtained a simple copy 40 In their brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives stated the following: “[Mrs.] Moreno was informed of the order to archive the investigation in a notification slip dated November 28, 2006”. They added that “on November 28, 2006 [Mrs.] Moreno knew about the decision to archive the case”, explaining that “[s]aid knowledge resulted from a personal visit to the Prosecutor’s Office.” As evidence that Mrs. Moreno was aware of the order to archive the case on the date mentioned, they referred to documents presented by the Inter-American Commission as Attachments 19 and 20 of the Merits Report. Such documents are, entitled, respectively: “Notice”, dated November 28, 2006, and “Official letter No. ZUL-20-1579-2007”, of June 20, 2007. As proof of Mrs. Moreno’s “personal visit” to the Prosecutor’s Office, they cited a document issued by the representatives themselves, submitted in the context of the proceeding before the Commission. However, this document does not expressly refer to the fact in question. The State did not contest the fact that Mrs. Moreno was informed about the order to archive the case on November 28, 2006, and stated that she was “formally notified through a communication signed by the [20th Prosecutor’s Office],” basing this affirmation on “Annexes 19 and 20 cited in the Merits Report No. 120/10”, which were mentioned by the representatives. 41 The Inter-American Commission stated that “[it ] can confirm […] that the petitioners requested copies of the investigation files before the domestic courts on August 24, 2005 and September 25, 2008 and that these had not been issued as of October 22, 2010]”. The representatives, for their part, pointed out that “copies of the files have not been issued to the petitioners, despite the fact that the attorneys of the Vicariate of Caracas have requested these from the authorities of the Attorney General’s Office in letters dated September 29, 2008 and February 4, 2009.” Neither the Commission nor the representatives specified which files were requested, nor did they provide a copy of the respective records. 42 As stated by the representatives in their brief of pleadings and motions, and not disputed by the State. 22