40 Globovisión and some of the statements make reference to the concession according to which the mass media conduct business and the possibility to cancel it (infra para. 363 to 369). 140. Globovisión was classified in the application of the Commission as “a private television channel legally registered”96 and as "a media company that broadcasts 24-hour news programming, with an editorial line that is critical of the government and was one of the four private Venezuelan television channels identified as active political participants in such upheavals as the April 2002 coup d’état and the general strike of December of that year.” Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that "the channel has also been singled out domestically on account of the way it covers certain stories, arguing that it incites violence, is disrespectful toward the President of the Republic, and broadcasts false and biased information”.97 The State did not dispute this characterization of Globovisión; it even coincides with the arguments regarding the political role that the television station would have had at certain moments (supra para. 62, 63 and 73). 141. From the analysis of the alleged facts (infra para. 169 to 279) the Court notes that the facts were commited by private individuals and most of them occurred while the alleged victims were working, who indicated how their personal and professional lives have been affected. In general terms, they agree on the fear they felt every time they had to work in the streets, in some areas in particular or while covering certain stories; they also referred to security measures that they had to adopt while being at work and also to their health conditions and the consequences in their interpersonal relationships (infra para. 286 and 287). 142. Moreover, other actions were addressed at Globovisión. For example, it has been proven that on two occassions, on July 9 and November 18, 2002, unidentified inviduals threw fragmentation grenades at the premises of Globovisión and that, on another occasion, on July 17, 2002, a tear-gas canister was thrown at the premises (infra para. 198 to 202, 215 and 216) Moreover, several incidents showed that the premises, vehicles and broadcasting equipment of the television station were damaged by unidentified individuals (infra para. 173, 191, 197, 216, 254 and 257) and that there were protests outside the premises (infra para. 220-222). 143. It is evident for this Tribunal that during such periods, the people linked by its labor relationship to Globovisión, or its journalistic function, had to face threatening and frightening situations and their rights were jeopardized. In fact, since January 2002, the Commission ordered precautionary measures in favor of the employees of Globovisión98 and since the year 2004, this Tribunal ordered Venezuela to adopt protective provisional measures in favor of the people associated with Globovisión (supra para. 20-23). Moreover, as has been mentioned, the State referred to eight decisions rendered between February video (appendix 2 to the application) and May 9, 2004. Cf. transcription of show N° 191 "Aló Presidente" of May 9, 2004 (records of evidence, volume VI, pages 1921-1922). 96 Cf. Articles of Incorporation of Globovisión Tele C.A. and its corresponding entry in the Merchant Registry (records of evidence, Volume IV, appendix 1 to the application, pages 839-854). 97 In making this reference to Globovisión, the Commission quoted the following: “Summary and recommendations of the Report of Human Rights Watch: Caught in the Crossfire: Freedom of Expression in Venezuela. In Internet at: http://www.hrw.org/spanish/informes/2003/venezuela_prensa.html”. 98 By means of these measures, the Commission requested the State to abstain from “all actions [..] as an effect aggression or intimidation against exercise of [the] right to freedom of expression as journalists and other social communication workers, as well as that of Venezuelan society as a whole”. These measures were extended during the years 2003 and 2004 in order to protect the life, humane treatment and freedom of expression of “reporters, cameramen, executives, photographers and premises of the attacked media”, among them Globovisión.