41 . 144. The Court considers that it cannot be concluded from the content of the mentioned speeches or statements that they in any way authorized, instigated, instructed, or ordered, or promoted acts of aggression or violence against the alleged victims by state bodies, public officials, or groups of people or specific individuals. Likewise, it cannot be concluded from those statements that those officials assumed as their own acts, neither “justified” or “considered legitimate” or supported or congratulated, actions that put at risk or caused damages to the alleged victims, after the attacks against them had occurred. 116 145. However, the fact that in several official speeches of high state officials RCTV, especially its owners and directors, were linked to plans of political destabilization, terrorist activities, or with the coup d’etat of 2002, placed the employees of the specific communication firm in a position of greater vulnerability with regard to the State and certain sectors of society. 146. The self-identification of the alleged victims with the editorial line of RCTV is not a condition sine qua non to consider that a group of people, made up by people linked to that social communication firm, faced, in greater or smaller degree, according to the position they occupied, a same situation of vulnerability. In fact, it is not relevant or necessary for all the employees of RCTV to have a political opinion or position in agreement with the editorial line of the communication firm. The mere perception as the “opposition”, “rebel”, “terrorist”, “uninformed”, or “destabilizing” identity, resulting mainly from the content of the mentioned speeches, is enough to consider that group of people, for the mere fact of being identified as employees of that television station and not because of other personal conditions, as submitted to the risk of suffering, to the hands of individuals, consequences that are unfavorable for their rights. 147. Is has not been proven that the individuals involved in acts of aggression against the alleged victims have claimed or stated, in any way, that they had official support or instructions from any state body or official to commit them, even in those cases in which they used specific external symbols (clothes or attire allusive to the government). Additionally, no evidence regarding the identity of these people or their motivation to commit those acts was presented; therefore there are no elements to consider that their actions were not attributable to themselves in their condition of individuals. 148. However, in the contexts in which the facts of the present case occurred (supra paras. 121 through 126), and upon observing the perception state authorities and certain sectors of society have expressed they have of that communication firm, it is possible to consider that those pronouncements of high public officials created, or at least contributed to emphasize or exacerbate, situations of hostility, intolerance, or animosity by sectors of the population towards the people linked to that communication firm. The content of some speeches, due to the high investiture of the person who offers them and their reiteration, 116 In the case of Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran The International Court of Justice observed that Iran’s religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini had made several public declarations inveighing against the United States as responsible for all his country's problems, which could seem as giving utterance to the general resentment felt by supporters of the revolution at the admission of the former Shah by the United States. It also observed that a spokesman for the militants that had occupied the United States Embassy in Tehran had expressly referred to a message issued by the Ayatollah calling upon pupils and students to attack the United States and Israel with all their will so they could return the deposed Shah and stop the conspiracy. However, that Tribunal considered that “it would be going too far to interpret such general declarations of the Ayatollah Khomeini to the people or students of Iran as amounting to an authorization from the State to undertake the specific operation of invading and seizing the United States Embassy. To do so would, indeed, conflict with the assertions of the militants themselves who are reported to have claimed credit for having devised and carried out the plan to occupy the Embassy. Again, congratulations after the event, such as those reportedly telephoned to the militants by the Ayatollah Khomeini on the actual evening of the attack, and other subsequent statements of official approval, though highly significant in another context shortly to be considered, do not alter the initially independent and unofficial character of the militants' attack on the Embassy.” Cf. ICJ, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment of 24 may 1980, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3, para. 59.