it indicated that Mr. Humberto Prado “can go to the proper Prosecutor’s Office, file the respective claim and seek protection from the Law for the Protection of Victims, Witnesses, and Other Procedural Subjects.” Regarding this matter, Mr. Humberto Prado submitted a copy of the claim filed before the Public Prosecutor’s Office for statements made about him in the media (supra Having Seen paragraph 13). 18. In this sense, the Tribunal points out that instead of implementing protective measures, the State focuses on an investigative response, which depends on a possible claim filed by the beneficiary with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In this regard, it is necessary to recall that Mr. Humberto Prado, in his position of director of a nongovernmental organization that represents the beneficiaries of the present measures, is also a beneficiary himself of provisional measures, and therefore it is the State who must implement the measures of protection and grant effective and adequate guarantees so that he can carry out his activities freely, avoiding actions that may limit or hinder his work.10 In this line, the prevalence of human rights within a democratic State is based greatly on the respect and freedom offered to defenders in their tasks.11 19. Likewise, this Court reiterates what it has stated in other cases in the sense that when issuing a judgment in matters of public interest State authorities are submitted “to certain limitations since they must reasonably, even though not extensively, verify the facts upon which they substantiate their opinions, and they must do so with a diligence even greater than the one due by individuals, given their high investiture, the broad scope, and possible effects their expressions may have on determined sectors of the population.” In this sense, the Tribunal has also stated that public officials “must take into consideration [their] position of guarantor[s] of individuals’ fundamental rights.”12 20. Finally, the Tribunal considers that the State must facilitate the means necessary so that the representatives of the beneficiaries of the present measures may carry out their activities freely, given that their work constitutes a positive contribution that complements the State’s efforts to protect the rights of the people under its jurisdiction,13 and especially, those who are imprisoned. 10 Cfr. Matter of Lysias Fleury. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 7, 2003, considering clause number five; Matter of the Inter-Ecclesial Commission on Justice and Peace. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, Considering clause number twenty-three, and Matter of the Colombian Commission of Jurists. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2010, Considering clause number twenty-four. 11 Cfr. Matter of Lysias Fleury, supra note 10, Considering clause number five; Matter of the InterEcclesial Commission on Justice and Peace, supra note 10, Considering clause number twenty-three, and Matter of the Colombian Commission of Jurists, supra note 10, Considering clause number twenty-four. 12 Cfr. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 131; Matter of the Colombian Commission of Jurists, supra nota 10, Considering clause number twenty-five, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 151. 13 Cfr. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, Considering clause number fourteen; Matter of the persons imprisoned in the "Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira" Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo, supra note 8, Considering clause number twenty-four, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2006, Considering clause number eight. 9