petitioners and their effectiveness. As indicated in the section on processing the case before the Commission, the State did not respond to this request. 67. The IACHR considers it necessary to state that the information required by the Commission allows it to make determinations on a case submitted to it. The Court has stated that the cooperation of States is a key requirement in the international procedure of the Inter-American system in the following terms: In contrast to domestic criminal law, in proceedings to determine human rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State's cooperation. The State controls the means to verify acts occurring within its territory. Although the Commission has investigatory powers, it cannot exercise them within a State's jurisdiction unless it has the cooperation of that State. 12 68. The Commission finds that the response from the Venezuelan State lacks the necessary detail on the actions taken by the Attorney General’s Office. In the first place, the IACHR determines that in cases such as the present one, involving reports of physical aggression, criminal investigation is the proper remedy that must be exhausted. In that connection, the IACHR finds that two years have elapsed since the first report of the aggression, the investigation has produced no results in identifying and prosecuting the alleged perpetrators and the State has not provided any proof of the investigations carried out. The Commission specifically requested information on the action taken by the Attorney General’s Office in the investigations carried out without receiving any response. In the opinion of the IACHR, this constitutes an unwarranted delay, which triggers the exception envisaged in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention. 69. Customarily, the IACHR does not require specific remedies in the event of unwarranted delays. It is the State’s obligation not the petitioner’s initiative to carry out the criminal investigation.13 Only if the petitioners’ action delays the investigation must the IACHR examine their conduct. The State did not allege nor did the case file imply that the petitioner had behaved in such a manner. On the contrary, in accordance with the proof submitted and not contested by the State, the petitioner actively facilitated the Attorney General’s Office. 70. In addition to the IACHR’s practices mentioned, Venezuela’s Organic Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that victims of punishable acts have the right of recourse to the agencies that administer criminal justice at no cost, expeditiously, and without undue delays or useless formalities.14 As one of the objectives of Venezuelan criminal procedure is to protect the victim, the Attorney General’s Office is required to safeguard those interests at all stages of the process.15 The Venezuelan Organic Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the Attorney General’s Office must seek to end the preparatory stage with the due diligence the case requires.16 71. Having examined the evidence provided by the petitioners, the Commission finds that the exception of unwarranted delay applies in the decision on the remedy covered in Article 46 (2)(c) of the American Convention, and that this petition is admissible, in view of the fact that at the date of drafting of this report, there has been no decision in the criminal investigation, which is called for in such cases, that would enable the Venezuelan State to resolve the matter internally. 12 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C. Nº 4, paras. 135 and 136. Also IACHR, Report Nº 28/96, Case 11.297, Guatemala, October 16, 1996, para. 43. 13 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C. Nº 4 14 Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, published in the Official Gazette Nº 5.558 of November 14, 2001, Article 23 15 Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, published in the Official Gazette Nº 5.558 of November 14, 2001, Article 118. 16 Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, published in the Official Gazette Nº 5.558 of November 14, 2001, Article 313. 13