34 initiative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in cases subject to public [criminal] action, by providing the Office with written information on the act and the authorship and indicating the time, the place and the evidence.”109 Moreover, although article 129 of the Federal Constitution establishes that filing a criminal action is an exclusive function of the Public Prosecutor’s Office,110 article 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the victim or his legal representative or, in their absence, the spouse, parent, child or sibling may intervene as assistants of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the criminal action.111 120. Based on the foregoing, the Court must determine whether the State has violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. To this end, the Court has established that clarification of whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the actions of its judicial bodies can lead the Court to examine the corresponding domestic proceedings.112 Hence, according to the circumstances of the case, the Court may have to examine the procedures that are followed in order to establish the grounds for judicial proceedings, particularly the investigative measures on which the opening and evolution of such proceedings depend. Therefore, the Court will examine the allegations concerning Police Investigation No. 179/98, particularly as regards any acts and omissions that have occurred since December 10, 1998, and will decide whether the rights to judicial guarantees and protection were violated in the said domestic procedure. C(i) Errors and omissions in Police Investigation No. 179/98 121. Before examining the alleged errors and omission in Police Investigation No. 179/98, the Court will refer to the representatives’ allegation concerning the supposed partiality of Judge Khater when denying the request for the pre-trial detention of Morival Favoreto. The representatives stated that this decision was based on supposed discrepancies in the testimony, which, in their opinion, did not exist; consequently Judge Khater unduly favored the said accused. The Court observes that to examine this allegation it would have to analyze the testimonial statements that were given before December 10, 1998, and compare them with the questioned judicial measure. Since these statements fall outside the Court’s temporal competence, they cannot be examined and juridical consequences cannot be extracted from them in relation to the State’s responsibility. The Court does not have any other elements that support this allegation by the representatives. Failure to gather essential ‘prima facie’ testimony Art. 14. The victim, or his or her legal representatives, and the accused may request any measure, which shall or shall not be carried out, based on the opinion of the authority. 109 Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 107, folio 2341. Art. 27. Any member of the public may request the Public Prosecutor’s Office to take the initiative, in the cases in which a criminal action is in order, providing it, in writing, with information on the act and the authorship, and indicating the time, the place and the evidence. 110 Cf. 1988 Federal Constitution, supra note 91, folio 2238. Art. 129. The institutional functions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office are: I. To promote, exclusively, criminal actions, pursuant to the law; [...] 111 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 107, folios 2342 and 2370. Art. 268. At all stages of the public criminal action, the victim or his legal representative or, in their absence, any of the persons mentioned in article 31 may intervene, as assistants to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Art. 31. If the victim is deceased or declared absent by a judicial decision, the right to file the complaint or prosecute the action shall pass to the spouse, parent, child or a sibling. 112 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 222; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 126, and Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 145.