94 makes it impossible to determine the seriousness of the facts in order to legally classify the conduct into some of the criminal types; even more, in those cases where there is no other evidence. The Court considers the State has the obligation to perform the examination and verify the injuries the moment they complaint is filed and the injured party appears, unless the time elapsed between such complaint and the moment the incident happened makes it impossible to classify the injury. 341. In those cases where no legal-medical examination was conducted, the complaints were lodged between 11 days and 6 months after the incidents occurred. In some of these cases, the Tribunal considers that the lapsing of time made such examination impossible or ineffective. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the investigations related to the facts of February 27 and March 1, 2004 (supra para. 244 and 256) were conducted ex officio and in spite of that, no legal examination was ordered. Hence, the State did not furnish sufficient evidence to prove that the Attorney General’s Office undertook the appropriate steps in this investigation. From this it follows that the authority in charge of the criminal prosecution failed to carry out an effective and diligent investigation in those cases. C.ii.4 Lack of a timely decision of the authority in charge of the criminal prosecution when the reported facts constituted privately actionable crimes 342. The State alleged that the filing of the complaint of the aggrieved party has never been authorized by the alleged aggrieved persons, and for that reason, no proceeding has been initiated under the judicial system. Specially, regarding seven incidents of which there is a clear unwarranted procedural inactivity of the Attorney General’s Office (supra para. 183, 187, 196, 204, 209, 225 and 231), the State alleged that the fact would be framed within the criminal type of slander, which falls within the category of privately actionable crimes. 343. As has been mentioned (supra para. 311) regarding the facts the State alleged to have constituted privately actionable crimes, in those cases, the Attorney General’s Office had the obligation to request the Investigating Judge to dismiss the complaint. Hence, the failure of state authorities to render a timely decision that could clarify that the procedure initiated was not the adequate procedural solution, did not allow or contribute to the effective determination of several of the illicit acts and, where applicable, the corresponding criminal responsibilities. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that the State cannot justify its total inactivity to conduct an investigation on the basis of facts that were not brought to the attention of the competent authority by means of the procedure established by the domestic legislation. C.ii.5 Unwarranted delay in the rendering of decisions regarding requests for dismissal 344. The Court notes that, as has been informed by the State, in the investigations into the facts of November 22, 2001; April 3 and January 9, 2002 (supra para. 172, 178 and 180) the Investigating Judge has not render a decision regarding the requests for dismissal filed by the Public Prosecutor after a year and a half and two years, respectively, as of their submission. In such regard, the Basic Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that “upon the filing of the request for dismissal, the Judge shall convene the parties and the victim to an oral hearing in order to discuss the grounds of the petition, unless the Judge deems the discussion is not necessary to prove the motive”322. Besides, the COPP provides that "the 322 Section 323, Basic Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 300.