164. Notwithstanding all the above, the Court points out that the State has indicated that the archive order is not “synonymous with the closure of the case” and that “new evidence [may] prompt [its] immediate reactivation.” Therefore, considering the State’s remarks, this Court finds that it is possible, insofar as domestic legislation allows, to proceed with the investigation of the facts. 165. It is pertinent to emphasize that Mrs. Moreno and Luis Castillo, as the next of kin of Joe Castillo and also as individuals against whom an unlawful act was committed, retain a legitimate interest, related to their right to have access to justice, in ensuring that the aforementioned crime is duly investigated. 166. Furthermore, according to what has been determined, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on the alleged lack of compliance with the obligation to carry out actions within a reasonable time. 167. Also, it is worth referring to certain arguments presented in relation to the participation of the alleged victims in the context of the investigation. In this regard, the Court has stated that the State must ensure that victims and their families have full access and capacity to act at all stages of the proceedings and that such participation must be aimed at securing access to justice and knowledge of the truth of what occurred.98 Likewise, it has added that the State must avoid obstacles and adopt, in the course of the investigations, the measures necessary to protect the safety of the victims and others linked to the case, so as to enable them to exercise their rights to a fair trial and judicial protection without restriction.99 168. Furthermore, the participation of victims in the process includes access to the respective case file.100 And without prejudice to that, it is admissible that “in certain cases there may be reservation of the procedures carried out during the preliminary investigation in the criminal process, in order to guarantee efficacy in the administration of justice.”101 The Court has also stated that, notwithstanding such State power, “in no case can the reservation be invoked to prevent a victim from accessing the case file of a criminal process [and…], if this were the case, it shall be guaranteed by adopting the necessary measures compatible with the exercise of the victims’ procedural rights.”102 of the proceedings to a senior prosecutor so that the matter may be entrusted to a different prosecutor. This is established in Articles 316 and 317 of the Venezuelan Code of Criminal Procedure.” The expert added that in order to take these actions, the victim must know that the case has been archived. Cf. Statement by the expert witness Pedro Berrizbeitía, supra. 98 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 241, para. 130. 99 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 214, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 215. 100 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 252, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 253. 101 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 54 and 55, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 252. 102 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 252, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 253. 42