23 83. The State denied having violated Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention. The State pointed out that the sporadic facts contained in the application do not form part of the everyday profession of the alleged victims; they are not attributable but to non-identified third parties, as has been acknowledged and confessed by the alleged victims and the Commission; neither are they imputable to the State, inasmuch as there is no causal link between the State's behavior and the alleged damage. Therefore, the State alleged that the obligation to prevent is an obligation of means and not results and the alleged facts do not either respond to “the will legitimately expressed by the social organs of the State”. Moreover, according to the State's point of view, "the condemnatory power of the Court, for the human rights violations, implies the guilt, malice or at least, negligence of the alleged offender, that is, that every conviction must be subjective, based on a trial for contempt initiated against the defendant State"; that the State is not held responsible whenever [it] "has implemented all those measures of legal, administrative and political nature that promote the protection of human rights and ensure that potential human rights violations be effectively considered and tried as illegal acts, entailing punishments for those who commit it”. 84. The State mentioned that in those cases, the behavior of the security bodies of the States has been proportionate, reasonable, necessary and essential, “since there have been serious disorderly conducts from the part of groups of the opposite party that cause, in connivance with Globovisión and other private television stations, serious attacks against the good operation of the institutions and the social order". The State alleged that the Venezuelan authorities have taken all the reasonable steps in order to reduce the risk and it has made use of all the legal and available means in order to determine the truth, the pursuit, apprehension and punishment of the responsible for any disorderly conduct or other type of attack. The Office of the Public Prosecutor has conducted inquiries about each complaint filed by the alleged victims, has carried out proceedings and has requested the cooperation of such victims. 85. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the State failed to comply with its duty to investigate the facts of the case, prosecute and punish all the responsible in a prompt and effective way, within a reasonable term, according to the terms of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of all the alleged victims. 86. As to the reasonable term of the investigations, the Commission alleged that the investigations have lasted almost six years and the courts have still not tried all the responsible, specially the state agents, which is aggravated by the Venezuelan legislation inasmuch as it does not provide any maximum term for an investigation to last. After many years since the beginning of such inquiries, the Commission noted that several investigations are still in the initial phase or pending resolution and that none of the incidents reported domestically has progressed beyond the preliminary investigation phase. The representatives emphasized that the phase of investigation has been excessively extended to the detriment of the right of the victims to access to the criminal administrative courts promptly and forthwith. 87. The State presented an analysis of each one of the investigations and concluded that it has activated the judicial mechanism in order to conduct the corresponding investigations and, if applicable, determine the respective responsibilities; therefore, by means of the entire legal system, it protected the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Moreover, it pointed out that it is not possible to demand results since the situation is complex and not clear and it may require greater time of investigation than other cases.