95 . 382. According to the Commission, on April 11, 2002 the transmission signal of the private television stations was interrupted, while the signal of the state’s station was being broadcasted. There is a judicial inspection that spread upon the record that on channel 2 of RCTV “there was no image or sound.” 383. The State indicated that the alleged interruption of the signal on April 11 th, due to the insertion in all transmissions of the signal of the station “Venezolana de Televisión”, could not threaten the properties of a television plant. It pointed out that once the nationwide government broadcast, during which several communication firms in fact divided the screen in disobedience to the legal code in force, had ceased the private stations reestablished their transmission without any equipment having been affected. 384. From the body of evidence it can be concluded that the transmission of a nationwide broadcast had been ordered at 14:30 hours of that day. 351 A judicial inspection carried out by the Fourth Judge of the Municipality of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on April 11, 2002 at 17:16 hours, in response to a request of RCTV’s proxy in order to verify that the national television stations were transmitting their signal was presented. This court verified that at 17:30 hours “no image or sound appear[ed]” on the channel RCTV. The same was verified with regard to channels 5 (Vale TV), 10 (Televen), 33 (Globovisión), and 51 (CMT). On channels 8 (Venezolana de Televisión) and 4 (Venevisión) an image with sound was seen on the screen. 352 385. Even though there was an interruption in RCTV’s signal and transmission, this Court considers that sufficient elements have not been provided to determine, in the situation and context prevailing in Venezuela on April 11, 2002, the reasons why there was no image or sound on the RCTV screen at 17:30 hours, or the form in which that interruption could have affected the freedom of the alleged victims whose violation is argued. In that context of very serious alteration of the public order, it has not been proven that state authorities ordered that interruption to the signal or that, if ordered, that instruction would violate the applicable domestic legislation or illegitimately restrict the freedom of expression of the alleged victims. D.ii.3 Fact of April 13, 2002 386. The Commission stated that on April 13, 2002, at around 20:00 hours, a group of soldiers from the Military House with long weapons showed up at the station’s headquarters. Two of the officers asked to meet with the executives in charge of the station. Upon doing so, they requested “that a live interview with them be broadcasted.” The Commission argued that Mr. Eduardo Sapene Granier had to close RCTV’s signal and transmit the state’s channel. 387. The representatives specified that on that day “at 7:50 p.m. a Major [of the Army] arrived at RCTV’s installations, in command of about fifteen (15) soldiers of the Military House, armed with long weapons. The official requested he be allowed into the station unarmed and along with two Members of Parliament of the MVR, with a representation of the Ombudsman in order to meet with the executives in charge, for which he was allowed access. The officials were received by Lic. Eduardo Sapene, Lic. Pablo Mendoza, and the Eng. Edgardo Mosca. Major […] requested that a live interview with him and the Members of Parliament and/or a telephone message with the Minister of Defense Dr. José Vicente 351 1841) 352 Copy of CONATEL’s official letter received by RCTV on April 11, 2002 (dossier of evidence, Volume VI, folio Cf. judicial inspection performed by the Fourth Municipal Judge of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on April 11, 2002 (dosser of evidence, volume V, folio 1401).