57 were initiated in order to investigate such events170. In such regards, this Tribunal notes that the Attorney General’s Office took more than four and a half years in adopting the first measure; such delay is unjustified. 197. The evidence on record indicates that the vehicle of Globovisión was damaged by individuals171, and that state authorities protected the reporters of Globovisión, helping them, according to their own statements, to get out in order to prevent being insulted172, therefore, it has not been proven that the personal integrity of the alleged victims has been violated. However, these facts prevented Mrs. Beatriz Adrián and Mr. Jorge Paz and Alfredo Peña Isaya from doing their jobs. * * * 198. The Commission alleged that on July 9, 2002 a grenade was thrown into the parking of the central building of Globovisión, causing damage to the building itself and to some vehicles.173 The representatives further argued that it would be a fragmentation grenade that it was thrown and destroyed seven vehicles; also, that grenade left marks in all the walls surrounding the parking area. The State174 as well as the representatives175 informed about certain investigative proceedings. Besides, according to the State, the incidents are related to the placement of other explosive devices at the offices of the Embassies of Colombia and Spain, within the framework of a campaign associated with the political destabilization lived in those years. 170 The State informed that on October 10, 2007 the 50º Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor ordered the appearance in the proceedings of Jorge Paz and Beatriz Adrian in order to render a testimony about the investigated facts. 171 In the video, it can be seen that one of the inviduals, who was allegedly "insulting" and "trying to hit or take the material away from the news team", ducked and returned the equipment to the reporter of Globovisión that was at the other side of the gate. It cannot be seen in the images that the demonstrators tried to grab the material from the news team that was interviewing them at the other side of the gate, as has been alleged by the representatives and mentioned in the statements rendered by Jorge Paz and Alfredo Peña. Cf. Video (appendix 3 to the application) and request for justification of June 17, 2003 before the 20º Municipal Court of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area containing the statements of Alfredo José Peña Isaya, Beatriz Adrián and Jorge Manual Paz Paz (records of evidence, volume IV, pages 892 and 894/895). 172 Cf. Video (Appendix 3 to the application), Request for justification of June 17, 2003 before the 20º Municipal Court of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area, containing the statements of Alfredo José Peña Isaya, Beatriz Adrián and Jorge Manuel Paz Paz (records of evidence, volume IV, pages 892 and 894-895), Brief filed with the 2° Public Prosecutor office of the Attorney General’s Office of Caracas Metropolitan Area on March 10, 2003 (records of evidence, volume IV, appendix 8 to the application, pages 965-975); brief of October 26, 2004 filed with the 68° Public Prosecutor of Caracas Metropolitan Area (records of evidence, volume V, pages 16711749) and statement of Beatriz Adrián (records of evidence, volume X, appendix 50 to the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, page 3061) and affidavit rendered by Beatriz Alicia Adrián García on April 8, 2008 (records of evidence, volume XXXII, pages 8508-8513) 173 The Commission alleged in the application that “On July 9, 2002, a grenade was thrown into the parking lot of Globovisión’s main building which, along with a number of vehicles belonging to station employees, suffered material damage. Members of the Directorate of Intelligence Services and Prevention (“DISIP”) came to the incident site and collected evidence”. 174 Cf. final arguments of the State (records of evidence, volume VIII, pages 2429-2438). 175 It mention, in particular, interviews, gathering of evidence, transcripts of visual inspection, official letters of the Public Prosecutor Office requesting some kind of reference of the explosive to the Claims Department, official letters of the Investigating Department against Terrorism, Division of Armament of the National Armed Forces, expert’s report and planimetry. Cf. charter of complaints presented before the Attorney General’s Office prepared by the representatives (records of evidence, volume XIV, appendix 69 to the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, page 4016).