89 313. There still exists an additional controversy between the parties as to the way in which the Attorney General’s Office had to proceed in relation to the complaints containing several facts that would constitute publicly as well as privately actionable crimes. 314. The representatives asserted that “all the complaints lodged with the Attorney General’s Office […] present facts of criminal relevance (publicly or privately actionable) with solely criminal purpose, […] so that by virtue of the connection between both criminal types presented in the complaint itself and in order to seek consistency within the proceeding, the Attorney General’s Office has the obligation to investigate the commission of such facts". The State, in addition, expressed that the investigations into the privately actionable crimes should be conducted at the request of the aggrieved party; therefore “in compliance with its obligation to conduct a serious investigation, it broke down the facts put forward in the [public and private] accusation in order to effectively prompt the procedural proceedings it is allowed to initiate according to the legal system, avoiding, in this way, unsuccessful results". 315. The Venezuelan legislation establishes that in the case of related crimes, when one of them is publicly actionable and the other is privately actionable, the case shall be heard by a court competent to try the publicly actionable crime and the rules of ordinary procedure shall govern307. Upon request of the interested party only, the court shall be able to prosecute private actions. In this case, the State would be obliged to adopt all the necessary measures of evidence and conduct a diligent investigation. 316. The evidence on record suggests that, as of the first complaint lodged on January 31, 2002, subsequent complaints, containing a great number of different facts that occurred between 2001 and 2005, were consolidated with such complaint. In addition, in several of the facts reported there is no identity of victims or of persons suspected of having committed a crime and these offenses were committed in different areas and on different dates. Nevertheless, the Court notes that all the complaints relate to incidents that allegedly affected reporters and employees of Globovisión. In fact, it spring from the evidence that most of the cases related to the media, and not only to Globovisión, were assigned to the same Public Prosecutor Office. On March 12, 2005, the 50° Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor Office ordered, after three years of the filing of the first complaint, "to organize the entire proceedings received, considering the incidents and the people affected", by virtue of the "complexity of the case and [...] the several complaints lodged”308. 317. In this sense, it is not up to the Tribunal to exercise substitutional jurisdiction in this case to determine whether the facts reported as illicit acts were related or not, under the rules of COPP and whether the consolidation of the facts denounced was appropriate or not. It is neither for this Tribunal to establish whether by means of the breakdown mentioned by the State, it was possible to come to a better or more effective result of the investigations. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the judicial authorities did not decide on the validity or applicability of the rules of ancillary proceedings, nor did them render a decision that would clarify if the procedure initiated was the appropriate one (infra para. 321). 307 Section 75 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure provides: “If any of the related crimes corresponds to the competence of an ordinary court and other crimes to the competence of special courts, the case shall be heard by the ordinary criminal court”. When a same person is responsible for the commission of a publicly actionable crime and a crime prosecutable at the request of the aggrieved party, the case shall be heard by the court competent to try the publicly actionable crime and the rules of ordinary procedure shall govern”. Basic Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 300, section 75. 308 Cf. Record of the 50° Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor Attorney of March 12, 2005 (records of evidence, volume XXX, page 7678; volume XXXII, pages 8185, 8262 and 8387).