20 thereto may trigger international responsibility of the State34. Nevertheless, this does not mean that any fact, incident or situation that may affect the beneficiaries during the enforcement of such measures, is automatically attributed to the State. It is necessary in each case to assess the evidence furnished and the circumstances in which certain fact occurred, even during the validity of the provisional measures of protection. 71. Furthermore, it is worth recalling that the Commission, in the chapter entitled “Preliminary Questions” of the Report on Merits, considered the following issues: 67. During the proceeding, the petitioners proceeded to denounce new facts that they consider to be in breach of human rights. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that from the facts presented after the adoption of the Report on Admissibility, some of them are of a different nature to the ones mentioned in the petition that was declared admissible in said report. 68. Such is the case of the alleged ways of indirect restrictions to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression for the facts related to: i) the beginning of judicial and administrative proceedings against Globovisión; ii) the approval and subsequent entry into force of the “Contents Act” (Ley de Contenidos); iii) the alleged abusive use of joint television stations by the President of the Republic; iv) the alleged decrease in the hiring of official advertising with Globovisión; v) the alleged refusal to renew the concessions; and vi) the alleged failure to process the requests to expand the coverage. 69. The Commission deems that the foregoing issues do not form part of the object of the case and, as a consequence, it shall not review the evidence related to such facts nor shall it render a decision about them within the framework of this Report on Merits, which does not preclude the inclusion of the other facts that, even though they were presented after the Report on Admissibility, due to their nature, can be considered as supervening to the facts alleged in the initial petition. […] 72. Moreover, some of the issues alleged by the representatives include controversies that are still pending resolution before the domestic courts of Venezuela and that may form part, in addition, of other cases pending resolution at the domestic or international level. These situations, assessments and arguments of the parties as to the facts not mentioned in the factual framework, do not form part of the controversy of the case at hand. Therefore, the Court shall not decide on such aspects in particular. It shall take them into account, where appropriate, as allegations of the parties and as context of disputed facts. 73. The State alleged that the private means of communication hurled “continuous insults […] frequently, against the great majority of supporters of the government of the President of the Republic [,… who would have] been frequently qualified [... as a] series of expressions of discredit that are only purported to humiliate, offend and degrade the public sectors, to support a legitimately formed and elected government". The State pointed out that "a series of insults and defamatory remarks tend to create and foster feelings of rejection and repudiation to the work done by private means of communication in the great majority of people that support the Venezuelan government, who logically and based on grounds, question the work done by such means in the Venezuelan society; as a result, there are tense situations that, on certain occassions, may generate in unfortunate violent situations on the part of the sector of the population that is offended, as a direct consequence and responsibility of the behavior and attitude of some means of communication and the feelings of rejection they generate by means of the jobs they do". 34 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 196 to 200. Cf. Case of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, considering clause seven. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures. Order of May 25, 1999. Series E No. 2, Operative Paragraph 2(b); Orders of June 14, 1998 and August 29, 1998 and May 25, 1999 and August 16, 2000. Series E No. 3, Having Seen Clause 1 and 4; and Order of November 24, 2000. Series E No. 3, Having Seen 3. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of March 30, 2006, Considering clause ten.