38 . indicate that there is a relationship between the Bolivarian Circles and the State. Despite this, there are no attestations in the dossier that lead to the conclusion, in the special circumstances of the present case, that those groups are authorized by the State legislation to exercise the powers of a governmental authority. […] 265. Taking into account the aforementioned, the examination of the attribution of responsibility of the State must be limited to acts committed by individuals in general terms. […] 134. In effect, in the application the Commission did not specifically argue that the State’s responsibility be based on the attribution of the facts to people or groups that were part of the so-called “Bolivarian Circles”. That circumstance is outside the factual framework of the present case. Even in the hypothesis that this factual supposition argued by the representatives was a complement of that presented by the Commission, it must be pointed out that they have not presented arguments or evidence regarding the creation of these associations, entities, or groups of people, their operation, and, especially, the forms in which they are supported, financed, directed, or, in any way, linked to the government or any state institution or entity. Even in the hypothesis, not proven, that any of the alleged facts were attributable to those groups or people linked to them, specific evidence of that relationship –and of the non-compliance of the state’s duties to prevent and protect- would be required in order to attribute the acts of those people to the State. 135. Likewise, the representative did not specify the effects that a relationship of “organized people linked to the government” would have on those facts, nor did they define what they understand as “organized groups of individuals that openly identify themselves as partisans and followers of the Government,” or as “supporters and partisans of the ruling party.” In fact, the State has also used similar terms in its defense and it also has failed to specify what it is referring to (supra paras. 51, 52, and 61). The Court observes that the mere “liking” or nature of “follower” or “partisan” of a person or group of people toward the government or “ruling party” would not be reason enough to attribute, per se, their acts to those of the State. The affinity or even the self-identification of a person with ideas, proposals, or acts of a government, are part of the exercise of their freedom within a democratic society, obviously within the limits established in the relevant national and international regulations. 136. Regarding to that argued by the representatives, in what refers to the fact that the speeches of public officials constituted a “pattern” or “state policy�� (supra para. 113), the Court has established that it is not possible to ignore the special seriousness entailed by the fact of attributing to a State Party to the Convention that it has executed or tolerated in its territory a practice of violations to human rights, and that this “obliges the Court to apply an assessment of the evidence that takes this matter into account and that is capable of creating the conviction of the truth of the alleged facts.”107 137. In reference to the aforementioned, the Court has repeatedly stated that the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee the rights acknowledged in the Convention implies its duty to organize the entire governmental apparatus, all the structures through which it exercises public power, in a way such that makes them capable of legally guaranteeing the free and full exercise of human rights.108 At the same time, in several cases regarding arbitrary arrests, tortures, executions, and disappearances, the Court has 107 Cf., Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 135; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 29, para. 97; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 97. 108 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez et al. V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 45, para. 166; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 92, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 26, para. 110.