35 . 123. The Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission, through its official letters and reports, has made different indications regarding Venezuela’s situation and has referred to expressions issued by high officials “that could be considered intimidating for the media and journalists.” Similarly, it mentioned that these statements could “contribute to create an environment of intimidation toward the press that does not facilitate public debate and the exchange of opinions and ideas, all necessary for a coexistence in democracy.”94 124. Several situations caused reactions from political bodies of the OAS. For example, the Permanent Council of the Organization, through Order 833, dated December 16, 2002, decided:95 Urge the Government of Venezuela to guarantee full exercise of the freedom of expression and press and call upon all sectors of the Venezuelan society so it can contribute to the strengthening of peace and tolerance among all Venezuelans and so that all social actors abstain from promoting political confrontation and violence. 125. It is appropriate to remember that in the periods in which the facts of the present case occurred, the Court issued several resolutions where it ordered Venezuela to adopt provisional measures of protection in favor of the people linked to the social communication media firms.96 During that time, the Court, on several occasions, verified the noncompliance of the orders on provisional measures.97 126. It was in that context that the statements of public officials referred to in the Commission’s application were issued,98 and the same consisted of pronouncements on a television program or other public interventions on different dates, as well as events occurred during the years 2002 through 2004 that were transmitted through the media. The State has not objected the issuing of those statements. 127. The speeches and pronouncements mentioned, of an essentially political nature, refer to the private social communication media in Venezuela, in general, and to RCTV, its owners and directors, particularly, even though they do not indicate any specific journalists. 94 Cf. IACHR. Report of the Rapporteur for the Freedom of Expression in the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights 2000. OAS/Ser./L/V/II.111, doc. 20 rev. April 16, 2001. 95 Cf. Organization of American States, “Support for the Democratic Institutional Structure in Venezuela and the Facilitation Efforts of the General Secretariat of the OAS. OAS/Ser.G. CP/RES. 833 (1348/02). December 16, 2002. 96 Cf. Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002; Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 8, 2003; Matter of the Newspapers "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia" regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004; and Case of the Television Station “Globovision” regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2004. 97 Cf. Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 20, 2003, November 21, 2003, December 2, 2003, September 8, 2004, and September 12, 2005; Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 8, 2003, December 2, 2003, and July 4, 2006; and Joint Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding various matter (Liliana Ortega et al.; Luisiana Ríos et al.; Luis Uzcátegui; Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez) regarding Venezuela of May 4, 2004. 98 Additionally, the representatives referred to 10 more statements of the President of the Republic and 11 statements of other public officials, which they argued formed part of the “context” regarding the alleged violations. Even though the representatives may present facts that allow to explain, clarify, or reject those that have been mentioned in the application, this Court considers that those other statements are not explicative of those facts, since they do not refer to the same but they are instead new statements, different to those included therein. Therefore, the Court will not analyze those other statements.