37 State.78 Furthermore, such declarations may be regarded as evidence that such facts are attributable to the State such officials represent.79 In order to determine this, it is important to take account of the manner in which the statements were made public when analyzing them.80 132. It is clear that the incidents of the case at hand happened in an environment and during periods of strong bias and social and political conflict. The parties and some of the witnesses, who referred to certain relevant events that occurred during the period of 2001 to 2005, many of which are of public knowledge, coincided in this point. 133. In the annual Reports and in the Reports on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela issued between 2003 and 2006, the Commission verified the existence of an environment of aggression and threat against freedom of expression and, specially, against the humane treatment of reporters, cameramen, photographers and other workers of social media. Upon identifying the areas of special focus in the subject, the Commission notes the existence of acts of “threats, attacks and harassment against social communicators, especially against those who work on the street, as well as the lack of investigation in relation to such threats and attacks”. It also referred to the lack of investigation into that acts and noticed that, on several occassions, it requested the State to adopt precautionary measures in order to protect the life, humane integrity and freedom of expression of reporters, cameramen and photographers who were attacked. Among the recommendations made by the Commission in its reports, it emphasized the idea of “publicly condemn, from the highest levels of government, attacks on media workers, in order to prevent actions that might encourage” the deprivation of life, attacks, threats and intimidation against them. The Commission also received information on attacks to mass media and communicators outside the context of political and social conflict, an increase of criminal actions initiated against social communicators and actions that may constitute ways of indirect restriction of the exercise of freedom of expression. The Commission expressed it concern because these facts that may hinder the free exercise of journalism, of those media considered to be opposite parties, and of official mass media as well.81 134. The Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission, by means of communications and reports, has made several statements about the situation in Venezuela and has stated that the declarations made by high-ranking officials “that may considered a kind of intimidation for mass media and reporters”. Furthermore, it indicated that such statements that “may contribute to create an environment of intimidation towards 78 Cf. ICJ, Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253, paras. 43, 46; and CIJ, Nuclear Tests Case, (New Zealand v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 457, paras. 46, 49. 79 Cf. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 390, para. 71. 80 Cf. PCIJ, Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Judgment of 5 April 1933, Ser. A/B53, page 69. Cf. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 390, and para. 65. 81 Cf. IACHR Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, 118doc. 4 rev. 2, December 29, 2003, para. 367; Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2005, Chapter IV, “Development of Human Rights in the Region”, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124, Doc.7, February 27, 2006; Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2006, Chapter IV; “Development of Human Rights in the Region” OEA/Ser.L/V/II.127, Doc. 4, rev.1, March 3, 2007.