41 2002 and May 2005 by domestic courts, in which it was ordered protective measures in its favor (infra para. 164, 167 and 168). Most of the specific incidents analyzed were reported before state authorities; especially, before the Attorney General’s Office (infra para. 302305). from this it follows that state authorities were familiar with such situations. 144. The representatives alleged that “the attacks and insults against reporters and other employees of Globovisión on the part of private individuals [… are] the direct result of their verbal violence attacks", inasmuch as “it is not casual” that, after the violent verbal attack made in such speeches, violent events occurred against the reporters and the premises a the few days later”.99 They pointed out that organized groups of private individuals, who are openly known as ‘organized groups of supporters of the ruling party’, identified as members of state groups called "Bolivarian Circles" or even as ‘pure supporters that could not be identified as state agents’, would have been “following guidelines consistent with the messages broadcasted to the public from the highest spheres of power". 145. In such respect, the Court notes that in the Report on Merits, the Commission considered that: 123. Before analyzing the general parameters for the imposition of responsibility in relation to the facts committed by private individuals, the Commission considers it is necessary to refer to the arguments of the petitioners regarding the direct responsibility of the State for the incidents caused by members of the Bolivarian Circles. The Commission notes that this argument was put forward only in the initial petition, since in all the subsequent briefs, the petitioners made reference, in general terms, to "the supporters of the government” in order to identify the attackers. Besides, the evidence furnished does not suggest and it is even impossible to infer from it, that some of the incidents of physical or verbal violence would have been effectively committed by people who are officially registered with such entities. [...] Based on the foregoing, the assessment on responsibility must be limited to acts committed by private individuals in general terms. 146. In fact, in the application the Commission did not ascribe the State responsibility to facts committed by people or groups that form part of the so-called "Bolivarian Circles". Such circumstance falls, in principle, outside the factual framework of the instant case. Even in the case that such fact alleged by the representatives supplements the arguments put forward by the Commission, it must be observed that the representatives did not submit any argument or evidence proving the importance as to the formation of such associations, entities or groups of people, their functioning and above all, the ways in which they are being supported, financed, led or, in some sort of way, associated with the government or some state institution or entity. Even in the uncertain case that any of the facts so alleged were ascribed to those groups or people linked with them, it would still be necessary to tender specific evidence of such bond- and of the non-compliance with the state duties to prevent and protect- in order to attribute the actions of such people to the State. 147. The representatives neither specified the effects that a relationship of “organized people linked to the government” would have on such facts, nor did they define what they understand by “groups of organized individuals who are openly known to be supporters or followers of the Government" or "supporters of the ruling party". In fact, the State has used similar terms in its defense and has neither specified who it is referring to (supra para. 73). The Court notes that the mere “support” or character of “follower” or “supporter” of a 99 The President of victims have between the employees. representatives presented a chart in which they point out, chronologically, the declarations of the the Republic, on one side, and 19 of such facts consisting in alleged attacks to which the alleged been subjected as a consequence of such speeches, on another side, in order to justify the causal link facts and the speeches given and the subsequent violation of the humane treatment of Globovisión's