2 working at those media outlets. On January 18, 2002, the Ombudsman reported that the proceeding was at the stage during which evidence was gathered. The Attorney General of Venezuela reported that Prosecutor 79 from the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the Metropolitan Caracas Judicial Circuit had taken steps toward opening the case and assigning three prosecutors to “advance and conduct the preparatory phase of the investigations”; e) on May 30, 2002, Venezuela submitted “updated information on the adoption of precautionary measures on behalf of “El Nacional” newspaper. In that communication the State reported that on January 18, 2002, the president of “El Nacional” was summoned to consider what measures to implement on his behalf. It stated further than on February 4, 2002, “a Metropolitan Police patrol car was detailed to watch the interior and exterior of the newspaper’s offices, and the Director’s private residence”; f) on July 10, 2002, the Commission decided to extend the precautionary measures for another six months to protect the safety and physical integrity of “El Nacional’s” journalists, workers and executives, since the aggression and harassment of the protected mass media that triggered the original request for precautionary measures persisted still. As of the present, those measures are still in effect; g) on March 22, 2002, the Commission requested that the State adopt other precautionary measures to protect journalists Ibéyise Pacheco, Patricia Poleo, Marianela Salazar and Marta Colomina; the last of these four is currently under the protection of the provisional measures ordered by the Court; h) on March 27, 2002, the State presented a report to the Commission concerning the requested measures of protection, wherein reference was made to the various communications sent to the various State agencies, and a communication from the Attorney General of Venezuela wherein he reported on the measures taken in the investigation into the facts; i) in its second report, filed on April 2, 2002, the State asserted, inter alia, that “Venezuelan society’s exercise of freedom of expression and its right to information […] ha[d] never been more respected than […] in the last three years.” In that report, the State cited a news item that appeared in “El Nacional” on “March 20, 2003 [sic],” which reported that a judge had granted “a precautionary measure for the protection of journalist Ibéyise Pacheco and the staff at the newspaper Así es la Noticia.” It also stated that “the number of agents assigned to each journalist, the mod[i] operandi, the schedules of the police escort and all the logistical details [would] be worked out shortly with the Metropolitan Police authorities.” Despite the foregoing, the State did not report any progress in the investigations conducted by the Office of the Attorney General into the facts denounced; nor did the State send an official report corroborating the news item in question. Furthermore, although the State claimed that precautionary measures had been ordered to protect Ibéyise Pacheco and the staff of the