45 158. The self-identification of all the alleged victims with the editorial line of Globovisión is not a condition sine qua non to consider that a group of persons, formed by people linked to this media, had to face, to a greater or lesser extent according to the position they had, the same situation of vulnerability. In fact, it is not relevant or necessary for all Globovisión's employees to share the same opinion or political position as the editorial line of the media. It is enough the mere perception of the "opposite", "golpista", "terrorist", "uninformed" or "destabilizing" identity, coming from, mainly, the content of said speeches, so that this group of people, for the possibility of being identified as workers of such television station and not for other personal conditions, were liable to suffer unfavorable consequences of risky situations for their rights, caused by private individuals. 159. It has not been proven that the individuals involved in the attacks against the alleged victims would have claimed or declared, in some way, to have relied on the official support or instructions of some state agency or official to commit such attacks, even in those cases in which they used certain external symbols (clothes alluding to the government). Moreover, there is no evidence on record regarding the identity of such people or the reason they had to commit the attacks; therefore, the Court has no element to consider that such actions were not attributable to them, in their capacity as individuals. 160. However, within the contexts in which the facts of the instant case occurred (supra para. 132 to 137) and considering the opinion about the media that state authorities and certain sectors of the society have, it is possible to consider that the declarations of highranking public officials created or at least, contributed to emphasize or exaggerate situations of hostility, intolerance or animosity of some sections of the population towards the people linked to such media. The content of some of the statements, by virtue of vote of confidence of whom made them and repeated them, constituted an omission of the state authorities from the duty to prevent the facts; inasmuch as such declarations could have been interpreted by individuals and groups of individuals in a form so as to lead to violent acts against the alleged victims, as well as restrictions to their professions. 161. The Court considers that, in the situation of real vulnerability in which the alleged victims were when doing their jobs, known by the state authorities, some of the contents of said declarations are not in line with the state’s obligation to ensure the rights to humane treatment and freedom to seek, receive and impart information of those people, given the fact that such statements could have produced frightening effects on the people associated with the media and could have constituted a breach of the duty to prevent violent or risky situations for their rights. B) Facts in breach of the personal integrity of the alleged victims and their freedom to seek receive and impart information 162. Some of the incidents mentioned by the Commission and the representatives, in which they alleged that the humane integrity of some of the alleged victims has been violated, occurred within the context of public demonstrations or protests, organized by different social groups.109 109 In this sense, a witness proposed by the State, Mr. Omar Solórzano, who worked at the Ombudsman Office between 2002 and 2005, stated that during those four years, where the situation of Venezuela was that of “a political pugnacity", several sectors of the society organized demonstrations almost every day and that more than 2000 protests, approximately, were conducted during that period. Cf. statement rendered by Mr. Omar Solórzano at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on May 7, 2008. This piece of information has not been challenged by the parties.