103 are not of a public nature, in the sense that all events all open for the public, given the fact that it would rendered the activity of the State's organs inoperative. The State also mentioned that dealing with issues related to a country’s security and defense, such issues are per se confidential; "otherwise the democratic stability or sovereignity of the Nation may be jeopardized”. Furthermore, the State asserted that it is up to the Ministry of the Popular Power of Communication and Information [Ministerio del Poder Popular para Comunicación e Información] and the Ministry of the Popular Power of the President’s Office [Ministerio del Poder Popular del Despacho del Presidente] to define the nature of the official acts and the scope of its broadcasting, according to which, in the exercise of its communicational policy, the State establishes whether or not it invite certain media. In the final arguments, it pointed out that all the public and official acts were broadcasted alive by means of the signal of the state television station and that other media were allowed to freely retransmit that signal and broadcast the contents of the act. Lastly, the Sate pointed out that, between 2001 and 2005, the national government organized approximately 394 official acts; therefore, the alleged restrictions to access to the sources of information only correspond to 1.8% of the official events celebrated and based on that, it was impossible to sustain that there was a State policy aimed at restricting the journalistic work of Globovisión regarding the coverage of the official acts. 375. In order to avoid an arbitrary exercise of the public power, the restrictions must be justified by reference to collective purposes and must not restrict, beyond what is strictly necessary, the right enshrined therein337. With respect to the accreditations or authorizations necessary for the media to participate in official events, which imply a possible restriction to the exercise of the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and any kind of ideas, it is essential to prove that their application is legal and legitimate and necessary and proportionate to the goal in question in a democratic society. The relevant criteria for the accreditation scheme should be specific, fair and reasonable, and their application should be transparent338. It corresponds to the State to show that it has complied with the above requirements when establishing restrictions to the access to the information it holds339. 376. The Commission mentioned that the reporters of Globovisión would have complied with the requirements established for the entry to the official acts. According to the narration of the facts, a request for authorization would have been sent; though there is no comment regarding which the requirements were or where they came from. There is no evidence on record as to the requirements for admission, or as to the letters that were allegedly sent to request such authorizations. 377. In this case, the representatives have not claimed that the alleged lack of access to official sources comes from a rule or norm ordered by the State. Hence, the alleged facts refer to alleged de facto restrictions or factual impediments, therefore the representatives have the burden to prove that the State restricted the access of the alleged victims to certain official sources of information. Once the restrictions are proven by the party claiming 337 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 supra notes 59 para. 40, 45 and 46; Case of Kimel V. Argentina, supra note 59, para. 63 and 83; and Case of Claude Reyes et al. V. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006, Serie C No. 151, para. 89 and 91; Case of Palamara Iribarne V. Chile, supra note 63, para. 85; Case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay, supra note 59, para. 96 and Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica, supra note 59, para. 120, 121 and 123. 338 Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Gauthier v. Canada, Communication No 633/1995, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/65/D/633/1995 (5 May 1999), para. 13.6. . 339 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. V. Chile, supra note 337, para. 93