47 crime.112 Accordingly, in circumstances of social protests and public demonstrations, while it is the duty of Contracting States to adopt reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully, they cannot guarantee this absolutely and they have a wide discretion in the choice of the means to be used113. 167. It is appropriate to clarify that the Court should not determine or assess whether the State adopted measures to guarantee law and order and the safety of people before each demonstration organized in Venezuela during the period of time in which the facts of this case occurred. If the State asserts to have adopted effective preventive and protective measures, the State should then prove the cases and situations in which the alleged victims acted beyond of what the state authorities could have reasonable foreseen and done or that they disobeyed their instructions. The State is inconsistent when alleging, on the one hand, that the alleged victims participated in “serious disorderly conducts” and that in the middle of those situations "they changed to the violent side" and on the other hand, that it adopted effective protective measures in their favor. The State did not prove, regarding the incidents that the Court shall promptly analyze, that the alleged victims took part of acts related to disorderly conducts or that they disobeyed the instructions given by security forces that were destined to protect them. As to the protective measures ordered by domestic courts, the Tribunal considers that the mere order to adopt such measures do not demonstrate that the State has effectively protected the beneficiaries of such order in relation to the analyzed facts. 168. As a consequence, the Court shall take into account the fact that domestic courts ordered protective measures but it shall not decide on the suitability and effectiveness of such measures or on the evidence furnished to such end. B.i Facts 169. The Commission alleged that on November 22, 2001, reporter Gabriela Perozo, producer Aloys Marín, cameraman Efraín Henríquez and camera assistant Oscar Dávila were covering a story when a group of individuals started hiting the vehicle and the equipment they use to broadcast the news; hence, they had to cover the story from the roof114. The State mentioned that Aloys Marín mentioned in the application as a victim of this incident, was not present at that moment and it also pointed out that it does not spring from the testimonies that there has been any participation of state agents in the alleged attacks. 112 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 32, para. 51. Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) V. Venezuela, supra note 110, para. 78. 113 Cf. ECHR. Case of Plattform “Ärtze Für das Leben” v. Austria, Judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, para. 34 114 The Commission indicated in the application that “On November 22, 2001, reporter Gabriela Perozo, producer Aloys Marín, cameraman Efraín Henríquez, and camera assistant Oscar Dávila went to the La Hoyada district in central Caracas to cover a march. When the team got out of their vehicle, a group of individuals began to rain blows on the car and on the camera while the cameraman was holding it. They also pulled on the microwave cable. Globovisión workers covered the incident from a nearby rooftop” .