96 . Rangel be broadcasted live.” They were informed that it was impossible to satisfy their request given the lack of technical personnel at the studio and that it would only be possible to transmit the signal of the State’s channel, as was done given the military official’s insistence. 388. The State argued that it cannot be held responsible for the actions of individuals on the mentioned date, by virtue of “the omission of the station RCTV to transmit the totality of the information in a truthful manner, as well as the open and notorious participation of some of its directors in support of the coup d’etat.” Likewise, it pointed out that the arguments presented by the parties at no time refer to any damage that could generate a restriction to the right to freedom of expression. Similarly, the State argued that the statement offered before a Notary Public by Mr. Sapene Granier is contradictory to his statement before the Public Prosecutors’ Office in regard to if it was a request or a demand to transmit the state’s signal on that day. Additionally, the State questioned if that transmission constituted a condition to withdraw the protestors that were in front of the RCTV headquarters or a contribution to spreading the news on the President’s return. 389. Regarding this fact, a video made at the RCTV station, 353 a brief containing a complaint of May 6, 2002,354 and the written statement offered by Mr. Eduardo Sapene Granier on May 27, 2002355 were provided. This last statement does not refer to this fact. In the body of evidence there are another two statements offered by Mr. Sapene Granier, one of them given before a notary public356 and another before the Public Prosecutors’ Office. 357 The Court considers that it was not presented sufficient conclusive evidence that proves the statements offered by Mr. Sapene Granier, in the sense that RCTV had to transmit the signal of the state’s channel of April 13, 2002 at the mentioned time or that proves the nature, motive, or reason for that transmission, if it occurred. Likewise, the way in which that interruption would have affected the alleged victims’ freedom to seek, receive, and impart information has not been proven either. D.ii.4 Fact of July 5, 2002 390. The Commission and the representatives argued that “on July 5, 2003 a contingent of the Army seized the television broadcasting station location in the “Los Mecedores” station preventing the access to that station of the technical personnel that worked there, since the National Army feared any hindrance to the television signal of origin[; that a]t that time the commemorative acts of the celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence from the Paseo Los Próceres would be transmitted in a Nationwide Governmental Broadcast[; and that i]n those circumstances the 32 Public Prosecutors’ Office at a National Level and the 126 Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area made themselves present and drew up an official document spreading upon the record the violations to the precautionary measures ordered.” 391. The evidence offered consists in a brief of the proxies of RCTV on July 9, 2003 before the 2° and 74° Sections of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the District of the Metropolitan 353 Video titled “Hooligans at RCTV Headquarters on 04/13/02” (appendix 70 to the application). 354 Brief of the complaint of May 6, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume V, folios 1485-1495). 355 Written statement offered by Mr. Eduardo Sapene on May 27, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume V, folios 1211-1224) 356 Cf. statement offered by Eduardo Guillermo Sapene Granier before notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5585-5591). 357 Cf. statement offered before the 68° Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas by Eduardo Guillermo Sapene Granier on June 7, 2004 (dossier of evidence, volume XXI, folio 6502-6508).