42 person or group of persons towards the government or “ruling party” is not a cause for the imposition of responsibility, per se, of the acts of those on the State. The affinity or even self-identification of a person with the ideas, proposals or actions of the government form part of the exercise of the freedoms in a democratic society, certainly within the limits established in the relevant domestic and international rules. 148. Regarding the arguments made by the representatives as to that the statements of public officials constituted a “pattern” or “State policy” (supra para. 61, 82 and 124) the Court has established that it cannot ignore the special seriousness of finding that a State Party to the Convention has carried out or has tolerated a practice of disappearances in its territory. This requires the Court “to apply a standard of proof which considers the seriousness of the charge and which, notwithstanding what has already been said, is capable of establishing the truth of the allegations in a convincing manner”.100 149. In relation to the above mentioned, the Court has long held that the obligation of State Parties to guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention implies the duty of States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights.101 Furthermore, in several cases related to arbitrary detention, torture, execution and disappearance, the Court has taken into account the existence of “systematic and massive practices”, “patterns” or “state policies” in which serious incidents have been framed, when the “preparation and execution” of violation of human rights of the victims could not have been perpetrated without the “superior orders of State high-rank officials, or without the collaboration, acquiescence and tolerance revealed by direct actions or omissions carried out in a coordinated and interrelated manner” by members of the different services of the States concerned. In those cases, instead of that having institutions, mechanisms and powers of a State functioning as a guarantee of protection against the criminal activities of its agents, it has been verified that the State’s power was “orchestrated as a means and resource to violate rights that should have been respected and safeguarded”, which has also benefited from the general situation of impunity of the grave human rights violations that existed at the time, promoted and tolerated by the absence of judicial guarantees and the ineffectiveness of the judicial institutions to deal with or contain the systematic human rights violations.102 150. In the case at hand, said public officials, in exercise of their powers, made use of the means the State provided them with in order to give statements and speeches and for this reason, they are of an official nature. In this sense, even though it is not necessary to know all the incidents that occurred in Venezuela that affected the mass media or its employees, or all the statements or speeches delivered by high-ranking state officials, the important issue is, for the purposes of this case and in the context in which the incidents occurred, 100 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C Nº. 5, para. 135; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 97; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 97. 101 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 33, para. 166; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 92; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile, supra note 27, para. 110. 102 Cf., among other, Case of Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 33; Case of Myrna Mack Chang V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C. N° 101; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” V. Colombia, supra note 22; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia; supra note 68; Case of the Ituango Massacres V. Colombia; supra note 23; Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 48; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile; supra note 27; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison V. Perú, supra note 36; Case of La Cantuta v. Perú; supra note 72; and Case of La Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 42.