the alleged victims without taking serious action on the proof presented by the petitioners with a view to identifying and punishing those responsible. 45. The petitioners point out that under Article 285.4 of the Venezuelan Constitution, the Attorney General’s Office must investigate and prosecute punishable acts on behalf of the State against the responsible parties. Furthermore, the petitioners noted that the State is responsible for omission or failure to exercise due diligence in the investigations, in noncompliance with the express instructions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in two binding decisions on the provisional measures requested for the petitioner Luisiana Ríos, among other RCTV employees. The petitioners stress that a reasonable time has elapsed since the first investigation was opened in January 2002 for the State to have produced visible results to identify and take the pertinent criminal action against those allegedly responsible for the attacks, in keeping with the State’s obligation to provide guarantees and make reparations as provided in Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention. 46. The petitioners add that the Attorney General’s Office must investigate and decide whether or not, if charges are brought, the victim will have the right to become a direct plaintiff or to join the public prosecutor’s suit. The petitioners claim that the ineffectiveness in conducting an exhaustive and serious investigation into the reported facts, to ensure that the petitioners’ judicial guarantees are protected lies in the lack of independence of the various branches of government, in particular the judiciary and the office of the Attorney General. Finally, the petitioners argue that, in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, there is no simple, fast, and useful remedy that provides the petitioners with effective judicial protection with respect to the reported facts. They also claim that the public authorities have not been impartial, thus judicial protection from the unlawful acts perpetrated against the petitioners is impossible. For this reason, they argue in this report that the exceptions envisaged in Article 46 of the American Convention apply. B. The State 47. In the opinion of the State, the remedies under domestic jurisdiction have not been exhausted because the facts—involving 22 criminal reports—are being investigated or are going through the penal process. The State declares that there has been no unwarranted delay given the complexity of the investigation into the facts by the Attorney General’s Office. On those grounds, it requests that the IACHR declare the present petition inadmissible. 48. Regarding the incidents of verbal abuse, the State notes that these fall under the penal provisions on slander and defamation. As such, the petitioners should not have reported these acts to the Office of the Attorney General because they are "private action" crimes and the proper legal channel is to file a private suit with the competent criminal court. 49. The State argues that the petitioners are not protected by the exception of having exhausted domestic remedies, as stated in Article 31.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedures, given the fact that the petitioners have access to the files of the case with the Attorney General’s Office and the Tribunales Penales de Control (Criminal Oversight Courts) and that on the Venezuelan law books there is “a wide range of legal and constitutional actions to punish, redress, and prevent the acts that allegedly occurred.” 50. The State reported that the Attorney General’s Office is actively working on the 22 criminal cases filed by the petitioners with the various public prosecutors’ offices. The State stresses the complexity of the reports of threatening telephone calls, insults hurled from passing cars, and the two cases of projectiles launched from an unknown location, as well as the complexity of the investigation into the reported facts, ”which occurred during a public disturbance involving many witnesses in the country’s capital city, who must be located for questioning.” new criminal procedure, although the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure confers rights and ways and means of participation in the new process, it is nonetheless true that contesting decisions is conditional upon the public prosecutor appealing as well. (Emphasis added.) 9