46 163. The State mentioned that in the cases in which state agents are hold responsible for physical aggressions to journalists, no evidence has been furnished in order to prove an alleged use of excessive force. It pointed out, in general terms, that if the alleged victims participated in disorderly conducts and due to their own negligence, suffered from some kind of damage, it cannot be expected for the State to respond for the damage caused, when the State has adopted all the proper measures to protect them and investigate the facts Moreover, it asserted that the alleged victims neglected the instructions given by the police force and did not take any minimum measure to prevent it, at the time of carrying out an activity risky by nature. 164. The State mentioned eight decisions issued between February 2002 and May 2005 by domestic courts, whereby protective measures were ordered in favor of specific persons associated with Globovisión and some of those decisions were ordered just in favor of persons that worked for such media and at the premises of the television station. The State further alleged that such protection has been acknowledged on several occassions by representatives of Globovisión and quoted, in that sense, several statements made by alleged victims or employees of the media. Moreover, it pointed out the state authorities did not limit to said protective measures, but also that it adopted several measures to ensure law and order and safety of people before each of the protests organized in Venezuela during the time frame of this case law. Before each protest, the authorities organized police coordination meeting in which every of the actors, apart from the Office of the Public Prosecutors, the Ombudsman, among other sectors, were present in order to prepare the security raids. It also mentioned that, as the result of several police coordination meetings organized between September and December 2005, "special protective measures were generally developed in order to protect journalists". 165. The representatives denied that the alleged aggressions suffered by the alleged victims were the consequence of their own behavior. They pointed out that they were commited during the exercise of their profession in the street. They denied, in addition, having been involved in disorderly conducts. They indicated that said situations also constitute news; without implying by that they had chosen to get involved in such acts. Furthermore, they alleged that there is no record in the case evidencing that the alleged victims have disregarded the directions or instructions given by security forces and that the State has not complied with its obligation to investigate the insults denounced. 166. In this aspect, the Court has established that the use of force by governmental security forces must be grounded on the existence of exceptional circumstances and that it can only be used once all other methods of control have been exhausted and failed,110 state agents must distinguish between persons who, by their actions, constitute an imminent threat of death or serious injury, or a threat of committing a particularly serious crime involving a grave threat to life, and persons who do not present such a threat.111 In that respect, the Court deems absolutely necessary to emphasize the extreme care which States must observe when they decide to use their Armed Forces as a mean for controlling social protests, domestic disturbances, internal violence, public emergencies and common 110 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 67; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 32, para. 83 to 85. 111 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 32, para. 65. Cf. also IACHR Report on Terrorism and human rights (OEA/ser.4.V/II.116) of October 22, 2002, para. 111, and United Nations Report of Special Rapporteur Philip Alston on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions (A/61/311), September 5, 2006.