82 . 324. The representatives argued that the State sought to justify its inertia with the lack of exercise of the relevant remedies and actions by the alleged victims, which is a right and not an obligation of the latter. Their inactivity does not justify the State’s inactivity. 325. As stated (supra para. 305), in the investigations of several of the facts discontinuance was ordered based on the expiration of the criminal action or lack of criminal definition of the facts. In another investigation, the Public Prosecutors’ Office ordered the prosecutorial filing, without there being evidence that the alleged victims exercised the corresponding rights to request the reopening of the investigation. However, with regard to the investigation of March 3, 2004, ordering the filing of the actions in September, 2005, the representatives requested the reopening of the investigation on July 26, 2006 and March 9, 2007, but on March 12, 2007 the 36° First Instance Court of Control Duties of the Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas declared the petition inadmissible (supra para. 248). 326. Article 120, subparagraph 8, of the COPP states that the person considered a victim may challenge the discontinuance in the criminal proceedings, even when they are not the plaintiff in the case. According to Article 325 of the same code, the victim may present motions of appeal and appeals for annulments against the ruling that declares the discontinuance, even when there is no plaintiff. On the other hand, Articles 315 to 317 of the COPP regulate the procedural precept of prosecutorial filing, “when the result of the investigation is insufficient to present an accusation,” and the right of any victim who has participated in the proceedings to request the reopening of the investigation indicating the appropriate diligences and address the control judge requesting that it examine the grounds for the measure. 327. This Court considers that the power to exercise remedies against decisions of the Public Prosecutors’ Office or judicial authorities is the victim’s right, which represents a positive progress in Venezuelan legislation,328 but that power does not free the State of its obligation to carry out a diligent and effective investigation in those cases in which it must do so. The lack of appeal of a jurisdictional determination or the lack of a request to reopen does not invalidate the fact that the State has failed to comply with some of its duties regarding the development of diligent investigation measures. C.iii Inactivity of the Ombudsman 328. The representatives argued that “the Ombudsman […] has presented a negligent attitude regarding the attacks committed against journalists, employees, and directors of RCTV, as well as against the installations and equipment of this media firm [… since up to] this date this body has not set forth even one action or investigation related to all the attacks narrated.” They also stated that “it was just recently in the year 2007 and [2008] that representatives of that body have come to the headquarters of RCTV ‘to discuss the precautionary and/or provisional measures ordered by the Commission and the InterAmerican Court, in favor of the employees and journalists of RCTV’.” Due to the aforementioned, the concluded that “it is evident that the Ombudsman has failed to comply with its obligation to promote and defend the human rights of Venezuelan citizens by leaving the employees of RCTV unprotected and promoting the impunity of the attacks that have been occurring against them since the year 2001.” 329. The Inter-American Commission did not refer in its application to any proceedings initiated before the Venezuelan ombudsman. Additionally, from the briefs and evidence provided by the parties it cannot be concluded that the alleged victims turned to that state 328 Article 328 of the COPP (2000) stated that the Public Prosecutors’ Office and the victim could file an appeal against the order of discontinuance, however, Article 117, subparagraph 8 of the COPP (2000) conditioned the power to appeal the discontinuance to when the public prosecutor had made the appeal.