106 387. The evidence tendered by the Commission and the representatives consists of a video, in which it is possible to listen to a narration of the said situation345. Furthermore, the reporter mentions that the coordinating chief of Globovisión would have tried to contact the Press Department, but that it was impossible for her to communicate and she narrates that other press media were allowed in without problems. Next, the video shows the reporter in the Press Room of Palacio de Miraflores narrating the story of the visit of the Colombian President. The reporter explains that she and her team were allowed in, due to a flaw of the security devices. Nevertheless, the evidence furnished is not ample or sufficient to consider the fact proven, since the recording does not show that the alleged victims were impeded from having access to the official sources; moreover, there is no evidence of the letter sent or of the fact that other media company were allowed in. There is also no specification regarding the other members of Globovisión's team, apart from Aymara Lorenzo, whose access to Palacio Miraflores was restricted. 388. The Commission alleged that on February 16, 2005 a Globovisión news team led by reporter Ruth Villalba was refused permission to enter Palacio Miraflores and install their microwave equipment in order to cover a cabinet meeting. 389. The evidence furnished by the Commission and the representatives consist of the testimony of Mrs. Aymara Anahi Lorenzo Ferrigni346 and a video where it is possible to listen to a telephone narration that the news team had been waiting for two hours and still, they were not allowed in with the microwave equipment347. The video shows a scene where reporter Ruth Villalba is being told that the waiting was due to an "administrative discussion" taken place at Palacio de Miraflores and it is mentioned in the recording that not even the people in charge of the press had information on what was being discussed. Also, the video shows another transmission of a reporter who narrates the alleged discrimination when trying to have access to such sources. It does not spring from the evidence tendered by the parties the identification of the rest of the members of the news team and Mrs. Ruth Villalba is not among the alleged victims of this case. In sum, no evidence was furnished regarding the alleged facts since the recording does not show that the access to the official sources would have been denied to those alleged victims. 390. The Commission alleged that on August 17, 2005 a news team of Globovisión led by Mayela León was prevented from covering the meeting between the President of the Republic and then former president of Nicaragua; that upon arriving at the Palacio, the presidential press office told them the meeting was private and that the only reporters who could come in were those from state media. The representatives further argued that “officers of the Military House […] prohibited the entrance of the news team of Globovisión and of the rest of private media companies that were in there”. 391. In such regard, the Commission and the representatives tendered the testimony of Mrs. Mayela León Rodríguez348 and a video in which the reporter narrates the alleged fact via the telephone349. Neither the Commission nor the representatives furnished evidence 345 Cf. video (appendix 34 to the application) 346 Cf. affidavit rendered by Aymara Anahí Lorenzo Ferrigni on April 8, 2008 (records of evidence, volume XXXIII, pages 8521). 347 Cf. video (appendix 34 to the application) 348 Cf. affidavit rendered by Mayela León Rodríguez on April 15, 2008 (records of evidence, volume XXXIII, pages 8768). 349 Cf. video (appendix 32 to the application)