59 . which was notified on September 27, 2007 to Mr. Amaya. 225 Given that the State only forwarded a notification of the prosecutorial filing, this Tribunal does not have enough elements to determine if the State acted with due diligence in the development of this investigation (supra paras. 97 through 100). 221. The Court considers as proven that Mr. Amaya was in fact injured with a bullet from a firearm during his journalistic activities and therefore suffered damage to his personal integrity. However, sufficient evidentiary elements have not been provided to determine if it was a state agent who shot him or if, in those circumstances, state agents did not protect the alleged victim, when they could have. That situation prevented Messrs Amaya, Pedro Nikken, and Luis Augusto Contreras from continuing with their journalistic tasks under those circumstances. * * * 222. The Commission argued that on December 4, 2002 the reporter Erika Paz and the cameraman Samuel Sotomayor suffered death threats, insults, physical attacks, and destruction of equipment by “supporters of the government”. 226 The representatives stated that the regional police organized a safety cordon between the people who were confronting themselves, but it did nothing to stop the attacks against the journalists and their reportorial equipment. The representatives argued that in said circumstances the State violated the right to humane treatment of Mrs. Erika Paz. 223. The Court observes that the journalist Erika Paz confirmed in her statement the version of the facts presented by the Commission.227 Likewise, in the video presented as evidence, attacks can be observed against journalists in a public protest. It shows how some people are walking on a street and yelling at the journalists who are filming the march. On two occasions you can see two people trying to physically attack a member of the journalistic team and another person who prevents it. You can later see how the cameraman is attacked and you can hear screams.228 224. The representatives argued that the fact was denounced on the following day before the Public Prosecutors’ Office as verbal and physical attacks suffered by Erika Paz and Samuel Sotomayor.229 According to the representatives, the State has not carried out any action and the case is in its investigation phase.230 Since there is no evidence that the Public Prosecutors’ Office took any action, this Court has verified a lack of diligence in the actions of that body. 225 Cf. Notification Document of September 27, 2007 (dossier of evidence, volume XXVI, folio 9678) 226 The Commission argued in its application that “[o]n December 4, 2002 reporter Erika Paz and cameraman Samuel Sotomayor suffered death threats, insults, physical attacks, and destruction of cameras and journalistic materials by individuals that support the government, while they were covering a protest. The regional police organized a security cordon among the people who were confronting each other. 227 Cf. statement of Erika Paz (dossier of evidence, volume VIII, appendix 31 to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, folio 3129). 228 Cf. video titled “Erika Paz” (appendix 37a to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence) and video titled “Samuel Soto Mayor” (appendix marked 37b to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence). 229 The representatives held it was not possible to obtain a copy of the complaint. Cf. final arguments of the representatives. 230 Cf. Final arguments of the Representatives (dossier of merits, volume VIII, folio 2497).