32 . c) that the speeches would prove “a state policy made up by threats, attacks, and violations to the freedom of expression by the different bodies of the public power of the State.” 114. In its final written arguments, the State reiterated that the evidence presented does not prove the alleged cause-effect relationship. 115. The Court observes that the arguments presented by the Commission in its application coincide with certain scopes and conclusions of its Report on Merits No. 119/06 of October 26, 2006, regarding the content of some statements of high State officials, but is contradicting with regard to others. On one hand, the Commission “considered it fundamental to separate” the statements that referred to threats to annul or not renew the permit or concession of the private communication firms, from the “expressions that constitute the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression by those high State authorities.” With regard to the latter, the Commission verified that in said pronouncements “reference has been made [to RCTV] as “horsemen of the Apocalypses”, “fascists”, who have “set out on a campaign of terrorism”, who are caught up in actions against the government of Venezuela, against the people, against the laws, and against the Republic,” “liars, perverts, immoral people, rebels, and terrorists,” but it made the following considerations: […]the majority of the pronouncements enclosed […] even though they may have a strong and critical content that may even be considered offensive, constitute legitimate expressions of though and opinions on the specific ways in which a means of communication can exercise the journalism that is protected and guaranteed under Article 13 of the American Convention and the Commission does not consider that they constitute a violation in any sense of that instrument. 212. The media and social communicators exercise a function that has per se a public nature. The particular exposure to criticism to which those who voluntarily decide to show the public their work is evident. The opinion of those who receive the information produced by the media and its employees promotes the responsible exercise of the duty to inform, especially taking into consideration the importance the credibility achieved through the informative task has for the media and its employees. 213. Therefore, it is evident that in the framework of the public debate in Venezuela the subject of how the media fulfills its tasks is a matter of public discussion and because of that the criticism and characterizations made within this framework by officials or individuals must be tolerated as long as they do not lead directly to violence.[…] 214. Additionally, it is not possible to conclude, based on the statements of the Commission in its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, that during the visit in loco it carried out it became aware of actions carried out by the media and that prevented the access to vital information of the Venezuelan society during the tragic events of April 2002 that led to the coup d’etat and the recovery of democracy. In this regard, it stated that even though the editorial decisions motivated by political reasons do not infringe any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, the best way to contribute to debate is to allow the media to comply scrupulously with their task to inform the population. 215. Based on these considerations, the Commission considers that said statements of the officials, despite the fact that they could be shocking, strong, offensive, or lacking good judgment at a time when Venezuelan history saw its population clearly divided by political positions cannot be considered a non-compliance by the State of the duty to respect to the right to freedom of thought and opinions, when instead it is a clear representation of its exercise82 (emphasis added) 116. On the other hand, upon analyzing the facts under Article 13 of the Convention, in the mentioned Report on Merits, the Commission considered it important to take into account the content of some of those pronouncement, to the effect of determining if the different instances of the State had adopted the measures they could reasonably adopt upon being aware of the risk for the journalists and employees of RCTV. The Commission 82 IACHR. Report on merits No. 119/06 of October 26, 2006, paras. 211 to 215 (dossier of evidence, volume I, folios 52-54).