12 exercised, have been part of a State's policy (Paragraph 138 of the Judgment). 17 according to the terms alleged. d) It determine that most of the statements made by state authorities are not in line with the State’s obligation to ensure the right to humane treatment and the right to freely seek, receive and impart information and therefore, they could have had an intimidating effect on the victims (paragraph 149). The judgment concludes that there is the possibility that the non contempt18 on the part of the authorities before the aggressive incidents commited by third parties, have led the alleged victims, employees of Globovisión, to a situation of greater vulnerability to perform their jobs, running the risk of suffering unfavorable consequences for their rights (paragraph 142 to 149). From the three foregoing paragraphs, the undersigned notes that the causal link existing between the reported damage suffered by the alleged victims in some of the cases and the State's non-compliance of which the State was declared responsible, is weak or nonexistent, considering that it was impossible to determine, specifically, whether the statements placed the employees (reporters, photographers, 17 In the same line of thought, the report Nº 119/06 of the Commission, of October 26, 2006 in the case of "Luisiana Ríos et al. V. Venezuela”, para. 180 and 212, pointed out that: “…omissis… For this reason, the thought and expression of those who do critical reporting of the government enjoys broad protection under the Convention as far as they form part of the political debate of the society. Likewise, the democracy itself needs that the expression of the thought of those who are political figures or followers of the ruling party within the framework of this debate, enjoys equal protection … omissis … the Commission notes that most of the statements attached, in which the President, for example, refers to the private media as, inter alia, “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”, “Fascists”, who are doing a “terrorist campaign”, who are organized against the government of Venezuela, against the People, the laws and the Republic, liars, evil and immoral people, golpistas and terrorists (supra para. 109) though they may have a strong and critical content that may be considered offensive, they constitute legitimate expressions of thoughts and opinions on the particular ways that the mass media may report, which are protected and guaranteed under Article 13 of the American Convention and the Commission does not find they constitute a violation of this treaty”. In similar terms, the report on the merits of the Commission in the case of “Gabriela Perozo et al. V. Venezuela,” para. 176,177,180,181,139, analyzed the same statements in the case at hand: “… omissis … the Commission notes that most of the statements annexed, though they may have a strong and critical content constitute legitimate expressions of thought and opinions on the special methods that a mass media may use to report, which are protected and guaranteed under Article 13 of the American Convention and the commission finds that they do not constitute a violation of that treaty ... omissis … the Commission deems that the importance of the mass media and, in particular, of the work of the reporters do not imply an immunity in relation to possible criticism of the society in general, including those of public officials. On the contrary, as vehicles of social communication, they should be open and set a tolerance margin before the public scrutiny and criticism of the receivers of the information they impart … omissis .,, Therefore, it is evident that within the framework of the public debate in Venezuela, the issue regarding how the mass media do their job is an issue of public debate and then, the criticism and ratings made in this matter by officials or private individuals must be tolerated as long as they do not directly lead to violence …. Omissis … the Commission deems that the statements of the officials, despite the fact that they may be shocking, strong, offensive or insensitive … omissis … cannot be considered as the State’s failure to comply with the duty to respect the right to freedom of expression and opinion, when such right implies exactly its exercise … omissis … though they contribute to create an environment of intense discussion and bias of the mass media … the strong content of the statements cannot be considered a direct cause of the subsequent acts committed to detriment of the employees of Globovisión”. 18 Contrary to what it has been set forth, it is important to transcribe para. 142 of the Report on Merits of the Commission, in the case of "Gabriela Perozo et al. V. Venezuela", regarding the same statements that are analyzed in the instant case, it was pointed out: “…omissis … The Commission took note of the fact that in April 2003, the President of the Republic issued an appeal to respect journalists and treat them with dignity as they deserve".