14 . administrative proceedings against television stations, namely RCTV;33 and multiple judicial actions seeking to punish the media, including with the suspension of their signal. The representatives state that in the specific case of RCTV 18 judicial actions have been presented;34 and they mentioned the alleged existence of a campaign carried out mainly by the State’s media and aimed at discrediting RCTV.35 * * * 51. In its briefs and interventions, besides referring to the majority of the aspects of fact and law of the present case, the State referred, inter alia, to the role of private social media in Venezuela, which in its opinion have become “firm political subjects in opposition of a legally constituted government;” it opposed the interpretation made by the representatives of some provisions of domestic law and judicial decisions; it referred to certain facts and participants in “a plan to destabilize the government and prepare the coup d’etat of April 2002;” and to resulting “rebellious acts of the officials who took part in the coup at the Altamira plaza, the plans of the business and oil strikes, the guarimbas of 2003, and the annulment referendum of 2004.” The State guarantees that during the development of those events, the social communication media “started a strong campaign in the media openly urging the population [to] join the acts of destabilization, […] as well as systematically and permanently urging the realization of acts of destabilization against the peace and public order, [… and] to the disobe[dience] of laws and authorities, [through the broadcasting of] messages of fear, hate, and discrimination against sectors of the population, that sympathize with the government, even though [this is] clearly forbidden by domestic and international legislation.” The State argued that the act of proclamation of the government de facto at the Palace of Miraflores enjoyed the participation and attendance of several owners and directors of the country’s social media, among which the presence of thr President of RCTV stands out. The State considered that this behavior of the media divests the true mission of informing to which they are compelled pursuant with the Constitution and it implies the development of “media terrorism”. 52. The State indicated that the arguments of its counterparties “are oriented to questioning a free and institutional exercise, in compliance with the legal system, of the sovereign powers that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela possesses as a free and sovereign State within the international community.” It also stated that “when facing the series of accusations, arguments, and questionings made, both by the Commission as well as by the [alleged] victims, in relation to criticizing and questioning the validity and content Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on July 15, 2003; the scope, content, limitations, punitive regimens, among others, of a new Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television; and some reforms to the Venezuelan Criminal Code of 2005. 33 Punitive administrative proceedings started on June 5, 2002 by the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) against RCTV for the alleged failure to comply with payment of the tax; Administrative control proceedings started on January 31, 2003 by the National Integrated Service of Customs and Tax Administration (SENIAT) for payment of the Added Value Tax; Punitive proceedings started by the former Ministry of Infrastructure against RCTV for violation of the regulations on content of transmissions, whose opening was ordered on March 20, 2003; Punitive administrative proceedings started on November 14, 2004 by the Superintendence for the Promotion and Protection of Free Competition (PROCOMPETENCIA) for alleged Practices contrary to Free Competition; Punitive administrative proceedings notified on March 18, 2004 by the National Integrated Service of Customs and Tax Administration (SENIAT), for the alleged lack of the tax statement corresponding to concepts of Taxes on Successions, Donations, and other related Fields; Multiple administrative controls, Inspections, and Investigations carried out by the CONATEL and the SENIAT. 34 They mention 11 writs of Amparo and 7 actions for the protection of children and teenagers. Specifically, the representatives argued that the State’s radio station YVKE Mundial and the state’s television channel Venezolana de Televisión would broadcast, on a daily basis, programs dedicated exclusively to offending and discrediting journalists and directors of the private media. 35