98 Court notes that the decision of the Ombudsman was adopted with a clear delay, failing to notice the mentioned deficiencies in the investigations conducted by the Attorney General’s Office and, besides, did not contribute to modify the flaws in the investigations, under the terms mentioned in this case. * * * 358. Upon assessing whether the investigations constituted a means to guarantee the right to freedom of expression and humane treatment, as well as to prevent the violation of these human rights, the Court takes into consideration that the multiple facts jointly reported could have contributed to the formation of a complex investigation in general terms, even though the investigation of each fact in particular was not necessarily complex. Moreover, this Tribunal finds that many of the facts were reported several weeks, months or even years after the incidents. 359. Finally, the Court notes that only 19 out of the 48 facts reported were investigated; that in most of the investigations opened, there is an unwarranted procedural delay and that in some of the investigations, the necessary steps to proceed with the confirmation of the materiality of the facts have not been taken. Moreover, in those 19 investigations, as a result of which no responsible has been identified yet, there have been unwarranted delay in the rendering of certain decisions by the authorities charge of the criminal prosecution, as well as by those that play a judicial role. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that in those cases, the investigations did not constitute an effective means to ensure the right to humane treatment and the right to seek, receive and impart information of the alleged victims. * * * 360. From the analysis of the allegad facts and the evidence tendered to such purpose, it has been established that the content of the statements made by high-ranking public officials placed the people who worked for such particular media, and not only its owners, executives or those in charge of the editorial line, into a position of greater relative vulnerability towards the State and certain sections of the society (supra para. 157 to 161). Especially, the repetition of the content of such statements or speeches during said period could have contributed to emphasize an environment of hostility, intolerance or animosity, from the part of sections of the populations towards the alleged victims associated with such media. 361. Therefore, the set of proven facts that affected the alleged victims occurred when they were trying to perform their jobs. At least in most of the facts that were proven (supra para. 279) on several occassions and in certain situations or events, which could have been of public interest or important for the news in order to be eventually imparted, the possibilities of the alleged victims to seek and receive information, as news team, were restricted or eliminated by the acts of private individuals who attacked, intimidated or threatened them. Furthermore, it is clear for the Tribunal the intimidating or frightening effect that such incidents, as other addressed to the television station Globovisión, like the setting off of explosives or tear-gas canisters at the headquarters of the television station, could have caused to the people who were present there and who were working at that moment in such media. 362. Therefore, the Court considers that the set of proven facts constituted ways to restrict, obstruct and intimidate the practice of journalism of the alleged victims, expressed in attacks or risk situations for their personal integrity, which in the contexts of the