20 . 73. On the other hand, the Commission and the representatives argued that the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate the facts of the case, prosecute, and punish all those responsible in an exhaustive and effective manner and within a reasonable period of time, pursuant with the stipulations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in detriment of all the alleged victims. 74. With regard to the reasonable term of the investigations, the Commission observed that the investigations have extended for almost six years without all those responsible, especially the State’s agents, having been prosecuted, which is aggravated by the fact that Venezuelan legislation does not establish a maximum term for the duration of an investigation. None of the facts denounced in the domestic realm have passed the stage of preliminary research and in none of those cases have any charges been presented against any person as the alleged responsible party for the facts, not even in the case where there is an author arrested. The representatives made emphasis on the fact that the investigation phase has been excessively prolonged in deterioration of the right of the victims to access the bodies of administration of criminal justice in a expedite manner and without any unnecessary delays. 75. The State presented an analysis of each of the investigations and concluded that “in the cases where their actions were legally appropriate (crimes of public action) it has started and carried out serious investigations, directed to establishing the responsibilities that result correct.” It also stated that Venezuela was submitted to a severe political and social crisis, which implied complexity in the development of the investigations. 76. Since there is a connection between the facts of the application that the Commission and the representatives have alleged are violations to the mentioned provisions of the Convention, the Court considers it appropriate to jointly analyze, in a first chapter on the merits of the case (chapter VIII), those facts and arguments. Specifically, given the characteristics of the present case and due to the reasons presented in a timely manner (infra paras. 281 through 291), the alleged violations to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention will be analyzed as part of the state’s obligation to investigate possible violations to human rights, included in Article 1(1) of the Convention, as a form of guarantee of the other rights that have allegedly been violated. 77. Finally, the Commission and the representatives argued that some of the pronouncements of the President of the Republic, specifically those that referred to the use of the radio-electrical space of state property by RCTV and the concession under which it operated, constituted forms of indirect restriction not compatible with the right to seek for and broadcast information freely, in violation of Articles 13(1) and 13(3) of the Convention. The representatives argued that at least in 11 of the facts the alleged victims were denied access to official sources of information or state installations, which constituted an illegal restriction to their freedom to search for, receive, and impart information, as well as a violation to Article 24 of the Convention, due to discriminatory treatment. At the same time, the Commission and the representatives indicated that the State intervened in the broadcasts of the RCTV station and in the technical means necessary to broadcast information, and that CONATEL forwarded official letters to illegitimately control the broadcasting of news stories or information, which constituted an indirect restriction to the right acknowledged in Articles 13(1) and 13(3) of the American Convention. These arguments will be considered in a second chapter on the merits of the controversy (chapter IX). VII EVIDENCE