102 371. Even though the Commission did not clearly identify the specific facts they are referring to, it indicated that the common element in such incidents was the fact that the sources of information to which the news team of Globovisión tried to access were, in all instances, official. The Commission noted that in most of these situations, the official media were afforded access and transmitted the events, possibility that was denied to the news team of Globovisión, claiming that the events were private, open only to official media or that Globovisión was not “on the list” to enter the place in spite of having met the prerequisites. The Commission alleged that the burden of claiming and providing adequate grounds for justifying a restriction of any right protected by the Convention falls on the State and that in the case at hand, Venezuela did not prove that the alleged restrictions were prescribed by law, or that it was necessary to protect national security, rights of others, order, health or morals or that the official or private nature of a media constitutes a reasonable and objective criteria of distinction as to the access to certain sources of information. 372. The representatives pointed out 16 facts that they consider to be barriers to access to sources of information, among which they include not only situations in which they could not access to official premises, but also other situations in which reporters would have to leave the area without covering the story or demonstration. The representatives also alleged facts that they were not expressly mentioned in the application of the Commission336, which shall not be analyzed given the fact that they do not form part of the factual framework of the instant case. 373. The representatives alleged that the State by directly or indirectly restricting, due to action or omission or lack of diligence, the access of Globovisión to national events, and preventing the news team from covering those events in order to broadcast them, has denied the possibility to the citizens of controlling, assessing and, finally, intervening in the management of the government and its actions. Besides, they pointed out that in spite of being able to access to the contents of the actions by means of the retransmission of the signals of State stations, they were prevented from presenting the information from another point of view different from the official one, even when being able to interview the public officials on certain occassions at official events. 374. The State pointed out that neither the Commission nor the representatives proved, in the six alleged facts, that the news teams of Globovisión were prevented from having access to official sources. The State argued that “the fact that certain television stations could have entered with more news teams and equipment to cover a particular event, may have many explanations, which does not necessarily imply the violation of a right”; for example, the insufficient physical space at the premises where the activity was being developed. In turn, it pointed out that most of the events that take place in a public office 336 In particular, they mention three incidents that were included in the framework of the provisional measures regarding the media Globovisión, of January 27, 2005; February 14, 2005 and April 21, 2005. Moreover, in the final written arguments they referred to 35 “additional” facts regarding alleged restrictions to access to sources of information. Apart from the foregoing, the representatives mentioned in the final arguments that they received a letter from Venezolana de Televisión on May 26, 2008 by which they were notified that a new rate schedule was ordered for the rebroadcasting of its signal by third parties, being Globovisión the only broadcast media of Venezuela that has received such communication; such request was later on denied. The Commission mentioned this fact in the final written arguments. This aspect does not specifically refer to the alleged facts as alleged restrictions to access to official sources of information, since it was not mention whether such rates apply to the retransmissions of the six facts contained in the application. In this way, they would not be supervening fact since they do not clarify, explain or disprove the facts already alleged; otherwise, they are news facts that clearly fall outside the factual framework of the case.