6 29. It asserts that the victim has not exhausted all suitable domestic remedies in the Venezuelan legal system. Regarding this, it claims that the Extraordinary Recourse for Constitutional Review is a suitable remedy to challenge the above-mentioned judgment of last resort that stated that the remedy filed by the petitioner’s attorney on March 16, 2007 to overrule the judgment issued by the Sixth 7 Chamber of the Court of Appeals was “manifestly groundless.” The State considers that the recourse for constitutional review is adequate and effective to determine whether a human rights violation has occurred provides all that is needed to remedy it. 30. With its response, the State provides a detailed account of the main actions that took place in the framework of the investigation and the criminal proceedings being challenged, and various clarifications about the same. rd 31. It highlights that the 33 District Prosecutor’s Office of the Judiciary District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas was initially assigned to hear the referred case. The Prosecutor in charge initiated the corresponding criminal investigation on July 19, 2001 and filed her charges on November 5, 2001 for the crimes of qualified attempted murder, rape, and the illegal deprivation of liberty. Regarding this matter, the State explains that, in view of the principle of innocent until proven guilty, the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor required a lapse of time that could comply or not with the two-month timelimit requirements provided for in Article 259 of the Criminal Organic Process Code. Therefore, it alleges that the investigation stage lasted three months and seventeen days, which “hardly exceeds a reasonable time-frame for the investigation of actions punishable by law which were highly controversial and subject to media attention as those internally examined” 32. It asserts that the Prosecutor in charge of the case requested various investigative steps. It indicates, for example, that on October 29, 2001 the Prosecutor requested an eyewitness inspection at the University Clinical Hospital where the victim was hospitalized to determine her physical condition. That same day, she requested a search warrant to examine the building where the victim lived to determine if traces of blood could be found there. 33. Regarding the house arrest of the alleged assailant on November 2, 2001, the State alleges that this measure did not constitute an excessive benefit. It clarifies that the measure of house rd arrest was initially granted to the accused on September 10, 2001, although the 33 District Prosecutor’s Office had requested the 18th Chamber of First Instance of the Criminal Circuit Court of Justice of the th Metropolitan Area of Caracas (hereinafter referred to as the “18 Court”) the preventive custody of the th alleged assailant on August 22, 2001. It indicates that, afterwards, the 9 Court of Appeals of the Criminal Circuit Court of Justice of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas ordered the preventive custody of the alleged assailant and that he was imprisoned in a penitentiary between October 11 and November 2, 2001. On th November 2, 2001, the 18 Court once again ordered the house arrest of the accused, because the Prosecutor filed formal charges three days after the statutory limit referred to in Article 240 of the Criminal th Organic Process Code had expired. According to the State, the presiding judge in charge of the 18 Court was removed on November 7, 2001 by the Commission of Restructuring and Functioning of the Judiciary System for having improperly annulled on November 6, 2001 the house arrest order issued on November 2, 2001. 34. The State recognizes that, although it is true that the alleged assailant left the place of his house arrest on November 6, 2001, this incident was immediately investigated and the accused was arrested a few hours later. Regarding this, it also contends that, on November 8, 2001, an order was issued to arrest and imprison the alleged assailant, his father and two other persons; they were charged with the crimes of embezzlement and facilitating escape; they were charged by the Prosecutor; and they were subsequently acquitted by a duly substantiated judgment. 7 On December 19, 2006, the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment convicting Luis Carrera Almoina of March 9, 2006.