37 . 130. Similarly, other actions were directed against RCTV. For example, it was proven that on June 3, 2004 the headquarters of the station RCTV were attacked violently by individuals, who hindered the work of the station, they tried to force security doors that grant access to the station by setting fire to a company truck, they fired shots against the building and they wrote insults on the walls (infra para. 264). It was also proven that on August 14, 2003 a numerous group of individuals made violent protests outside the installations of the channel, during which unidentified individuals made paintings with different inscriptions (infra para. 237). Finally, in several of the facts it was verified that vehicles and transmission equipment of the station resulted damaged by unidentified individuals (infra paras. 200, 224, 237, and 264). 131. It is clear that in the mentioned periods of time the people with a work relationship with RCTV, or part of its journalistic operation, faced threatening, intimidating situations that put their rights at risk. In effect, since January 2002 the Commission issued precautionary measures in favor of the employees of RCTV105 and since November 2002 this Tribunal ordered Venezuela to adopt provisional protection measures in favor of the people linked to RCTV (supra paras. 20 through 29). Additionally, as indicated, the State mentioned protection orders issued by domestic Venezuelan bodies. The majority of the facts analyzed were denounced before state authorities, specifically the Public Prosecutors’ Office (supra para. 289). This proves that the State was aware of these situations. 132. The representatives argued that the physical attacks of which the journalists and other employees of RCTV have been object “are a natural consequence of the aggressive and violent discourse of the President of the Republic and other high authorities,” since “it is [not] a coincidence that a few days after a violent verbal attack of the President of the Republic against the media or specifically against RCTV, during the journalistic coverage of the next public event, violent episodes occur against the journalists of RCTV or its property.” They stated that another aspect of the pattern of aggression consists “of the internalization of these ideas in Venezuelans who follow and are partisans of the President,” who have felt directly or indirectly supported by the State and, therefore, entitled to physically and morally attack the station, its journalists, employees, and directors. 133. In this regard, the Court observes that in its Report on merits the Commission made the following consideration:106 262. As has been proven, the acts of harassment, physical and verbal aggressions, and threats received by the alleged victims of the present case […] result from both acts and omissions of State officials, as well as from individual acts. The petitioners argue that the majority of the acts of individuals […] originate in organized groups such as the Bolivarian Circles and “semi-public groups” like the M-28 Movement, the Tupamaro Movement, the Carapacia Movement, and the Bolivarian Liberation Front “openly financed and acknowledged by the Government with State resources […] indoctrinated and supplied with weapons to defend the revolutionary project sought by the President,” who act in collaboration and coordination with the government. 263. Despite those arguments, the Commission does not have sufficient elements to be able to make a clear analysis of the legal characteristics of each of these groups, nor can it determine which of the physical and verbal attacks were in fact carried out by each of the organizations or movements previously mentioned or by individuals. 264. The Commission cannot leave out the fact that there are evidentiary elements that 105 Through the adoption of those measures, the Commission asked the State that it abstain from carrying out any action that may have an intimidating effect on the professional exercise of the journalists and other employees that worked at the communication firms Globovisión and RCTV, as well as the adoption of the measures necessary to protect the safety of all the employees and the properties of the channels mentioned. 106 IACHR. Report on merits No. 119/06 of October 26, 2006, paras. 262 to 265 (dossier of evidence, volume I, folios 63-64).