[it…] indicating the appropriate steps.” Thus, it is also, in its view, “a guarantee for the victim.” The State recalled that the CICPC continues with its work of collecting new evidence, even in cases where an order to archive the file has been issued. [ T] these elements are obtained in the ongoing police work and investigations under way. As new evidence appears, there would be an immediate reactivation [of the case], resulting in new actions whose outcome would allow the Prosecutor to bring a formal indictment before the Judge. 145. It added that the victim of a criminal act can go before the Criminal Judge at any time, according to Article 316 of the Procedural Code “when the Public Prosecutor has decided to archive the case [...] asking him to examine the grounds [for the archive]” and if he or she finds elements, according to Article 317, “the court […] will order the proceedings to be sent so [that the same Prosecutor or another] may act accordingly.” It noted that, in any case, t]he alleged victims failed to exhaust the domestic remedies and legal rights established in [...] Article 316, in regard to lifting the order to archive a case before a Judge, after having been formally notified by way of a communication [of] the 20th prosecutor in charge of the case. 146. Despite this, the State indicated that the representatives “turned [to] the international courts” without having “sought a final and legal closure of the case”, which would only be possible “through a request for a stay of proceedings” processed before the Criminal Judge, according to Article 318 of said Procedural Code. Based on the foregoing, it explained, in the public hearing, that “the domestic remedies were not exhausted”, a point reiterated in its final written arguments, stating that for this reason it filed a "preliminary objection.” 147. Venezuela stated that there is “bad faith” on the part of the Commission, inasmuch as it declared the period of the investigation to be “unreasonable.” In this regard, it stated that said period should be counted “from the date of the start of the investigation, until the moment when the Attorney General’s Office […] ordered the case to be archived.” 148. Finally, the State argued that the representatives “never reviewed the investigation or interviewed investigators or prosecutors [...] appointed [to the case].” Moreover, it indicated that on August 24, 2005 the representatives requested a simple copy of the file, but said request was not submitted to the “Office of the Public Prosecutor in Machiques [, but rather] it was sent to the General Secretariat of the Republic based in Caracas.” Considerations of the Court 149. Bearing in mind the foregoing points, the Court will now examine the investigation conducted in the present case, based on its characteristics and the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial84 and judicial protection85. Thus, it will examine the investigative procedures carried out following the attack on August 27, 2003 against Mr. Castillo, Mrs. 84 Article 8 of the American Convention states: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. […] 85 Article 25 of the American Convention, states: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 37