local levels, to the detriment of human rights activists (supra paras. 35 to 38).231 In this context, and given the abuses suffered by him and his family members, Luis Enrique Uzcátegui devoted himself to reporting information and lobbying activities in respect of persons who were in similar situations. 188. It is likewise recorded that on February 7, 2003 the then Commander General of the Armed Police Forces of the State of Falcón filed suit against Luis Uzcátegui, alleging defamation for four public statements made by him and published in the press between June 2002 and February 2003 (supra para. 124)232. Thus, while it is not up to the Court to rule on the legality of such statements, it is understandable that these could have caused a normal or legitimate reaction in the person who felt that these alluded to him. In turn, the statements published were also brought to the attention of the authorities competent to investigate them through complaints made, and so, in this context, these could be understood as part of a broader public debate about the possible involvement of state security forces in serious human rights violations. 189. In this case, Mr. Uzcátegui was kept in a situation of uncertainty, insecurity and intimidation by the criminal proceedings against him, given the high position held by the person who filed suit233, who was also mentioned in those statements as one of the people allegedly responsible for the facts, in the aforementioned context of threats, harassment and unlawful arrests. Thus, the criminal proceedings could have had an intimidating or inhibiting effect on the exercise of his freedom of expression, contrary to the State’s obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of this right in a democratic society. 190. With regard to the foregoing, the Court has established that it is possible for freedom of expression to be unlawfully curtailed by de facto conditions that directly or indirectly place those who exercise it in a situation of risk or increased vulnerability. For this reason, the State must refrain from acting in a manner that propitiates, encourages, favors or increases that vulnerability and must adopt, where appropriate, necessary and reasonable measures to prevent violations or protect the rights of those who find themselves in such a situation.234 231 In this regard, the Ombudsman’s Office of Venezuela stated, in relation to the context of police abuses and executions, that “[t]he impunity with which those responsible act has an intimidating effect on witnesses, and on the population in general [and] [i]n many cases, the relatives and witnesses are threatened by the officers identified as being responsible, or by officers of the same police unit, or by unidentified persons.” (2002 Annual Report of the Ombudsman’s Office of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Evidence file, volume 24, page 7831 and Attachment 3 to the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence in digital format, page 22). 232 It is appropriate to recall that, despite reiterated requests, the State did not forward the evidence from the file concerning the aforementioned complaint, or in particular, the decision to dismiss the case which ended the process and, as a result, it was not possible to determine the actions of the judge hearing the case, or the reasons for its delay. Indeed, from the documents provided by the representatives, it is clear that in early December 2003 the defense lawyers of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui requested the case file, and in response were informed that “said file is neither in the respective archive, nor at the court, nor at the Court of First Instance in which only the main piece of evidence appears”, after which the judge in the case opened an administrative proceeding to “confirm the disappearance of the file […] and to identify those responsible administratively” (Record of the President of the Criminal Circuit Court and Supervising Judge of the State of Falcón, December 17, 2003, Evidence file, volume 15, pages 5025 -5027). 233 In the Case of Otegi Mondragón v. Spain, the European Court of Human Rights noted that, although it is legitimate that State institutions, as guarantors of institutional public order, should be protected by the competent authorities, the dominant position held by such institutions requires the authorities to exercise greater self-restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings. European Court of Human Rights, Case Otegi Mondragón v. Spain, no 2034/07, March 15, 2011, para. 58. 234 Cf. Case Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26,2010. Series C No. 213, para. 172 and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 118. 47