19 . 69. Thus, the Commission indicated four facts that affected three alleged victims.42 It argued that, “for not having offered elements of protection to decrease the risk, since it did not completely and diligently investigate or punish those responsible for the mentioned impacts produced with fire arms,” the State is responsible for the violation of the right to physical integrity of Messrs. José Antonio Monroy, Armando Amaya, and Carlos Colmenares, injured with fire arms while the covered public protests. The State had a “special duty of protection” regarding those three people, since they were protected by precautionary measures requested by the Commission as of January and July 2002, and because they were social communicators of RCTV and they were in a risky situation, despite which the State did not adopt any protection measure and did not comply with the decisions of the Commission and the Court. 70. The representatives coincided with the Commission in alleging that these four facts violate the right to physical integrity and mentioned eight more facts in this sense.43 The representatives argued that the totality of the facts included in the application were a direct consequence of the statements of public officials addressed against journalists and directors of RCTV and, therefore, attributable to the State and that they constitute violations of the state’s duty to respect, guarantee, and prevent the violations to the right to personal integrity of the alleged victims. They asked the Court to declare that the State violated that right, ‘in its psychic dimension”, in detriment of “all the victims in the present case.” Finally, they held that the State had violated Articles 5, 13, 8, and 25 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “Convention of Belem do Pará”) 71. The State denied having incurred in violation of Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention. It stated that the sporadic facts included in the application are not part of the daily professional tasks of the alleged victims and they are attributable to non-identified third parties, as acknowledged and confessed by those and the Commission. The protection of the alleged victims and the control of public order are also not attributable to the State, who has guaranteed the investigation of those facts. It stated that these facts cannot justify a conviction against the State, since the obligation to prevent is of means and not results and “the logical system of responsibility of the States, either patrimonial or for violations to human rights, must respect the basic rules of international order, in the sense that, the State cannot respond for facts of third parties, first of all, when it has applied due diligence to avoid and punish those facts, as in the present case, nor can the State respond for misconducts of the victims themselves, when, as in the present case, it is the claimants themselves who have caused the isolated and exceptional facts they denounce, through the continuous urging to hatred and destabilization.” 72. The State indicated that the action of the State’s security forces has been proportional, reasonable, necessary, and indispensable, “since there have been very grave alterations to public order, by opposing groups that cause, along with RCTV and other biased media of the opposition, serious attacks against the good performance of the institutions and social peace.” It argued that in the present case the authorities have done everything reasonably expected to reduce the risk, and all legal means available have been used to determine the truth, prosecution, capture, and punishment of those responsible for any alteration to the public order or any attack. The Public Prosecutors’ Office has opened investigations in relation to each complaint filed by the victims, has substantiated them and has requested the collaboration of the latter. The State argued that in many cases it could not establish the type and degree of the injury suffered by the alleged victims, who would not go to a help center to be evaluated. 42 Facts of August 15, 2002, November 12, 2002, August 19, 2003, and March 3, 2004. Facts of April 10, 2002, March 3, 2004, March 12, 2002, August 15, 2002, April 3, 2002, December 4, 2002, March 3, 2004, and June 3, 2004. 43