22 incumbent on the State and that “they can result in violent acts against people that are identified as employees of certain media”. 78. More specifically, taking into account that great part of the facts mentioned in the application has been committed by individuals, the Commission alleged that it is possible to hold the State internationally responsible for those acts committed by third parties, since the State knew about the situation of real danger and did not adopt any reasonable measure to avoid it. Furthermore, the Commission argued that the repetition of this type of events addressed to employees who were identified with the television station Globovisión, by the mere fact of belonging to such media as considered by a sector of the society to be oppositors and golpista, “implies an expansion of the effects as to the freedom to perform activity in front of other people who are in the same situation”, since the behavior of the individuals aimed at adversely affect their activities to seek and impart information and did not constitute violent acts due to personal issues or some element different from the working relationship with the television station. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the State has not acted in a diligent and prompt way when investigating the facts. 79. The representatives substantially coincided with the argument put forward by the Commission and insisted in that, even though in principle the speech of the public authorities, even such of critical and insulting content, is covered by the freedom of expression, such is not covered by such freedom inasmuch as it truly, imminently and in a verifiable way encourages violent acts among the population. In those cases, they alleged, the State is responsible not only for the official speech of violence in which Globovisión, its journalists and managers were repeatedly, publicly and openly insulted, but also for the insults prompted in the civil society by groups of individuals who were performing and following such messages. 80. Moreover, the Commission and the representatives alleged the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, though both parties disagreed about the facts, arguments and reasons asserted to support the alleged violations. 81. Hence, the Commission mentioned four facts that affected six alleged victims, namely: That Mrs. Janeth Carrasquilla Villasmil was insulted during a situation in which state agents made disproportionate use of force to control a situation of disturbance of the public peace; and that Mr. Alfredo Peña Isaya, Oscar Nuñez, Ángel Millán, Joshua Torres and Mrs. Martha Palma Troconis were hit by unidentified persons while they were working. The Commission alleged that considering the fact that they put up with such insults, the State is responsable for the violation of the right to humane treatment, in relation to the state obligation to respect such right, to the detriment of Mrs. Carrasquilla and in relation to the general obligation to ensure it, to the detriment of Mr. Peña Isaya, Núñez, Millán, Torres and Palma. 82. The representatives agreed with the Commission as to the allegation of these four facts as being in breach of the right to humane treatment and they argued another three facts where another three alleged victims “would have also been victims of physical assaults, that due to a material mistake, [they would have] not been included as such in the [Commission’s list]”. The representatives argued that the statements made by high state officials constitute, per se, violations of the state duty to respect, ensure and prevent violations of the right to humane treatment. They requested the Court to declare that the State violated the right to humane treatment, "in its psychic dimension", to the detriment of the alleged victims they represent. Finally, the representatives alleged that the State has violated Articles 5, 13, 8 and 25 of the American Convention "in relation to" Articles 1, 2 and 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Woman (hereinafter, "Convention of Belem do Pará").