39 . taken into account the existence of “systematic and massive practices”, “patterns”, or “state policies” within which the grave facts have occurred, when “the preparation and execution” of the violation of human rights against the victims was perpetrated “with the knowledge or superior orders of high commands and State authorities or with the collaboration, acquiescence, and tolerance, made evident in different actions and omissions carried out in a coordinated or related manner,” of members of different structures and state bodies. In those cases, instead of the institutions, mechanisms, and powers of the State acting as a guarantee of prevention and protection of the victims against the criminal actions of its states, an “instrumentalization of state power as a means and resource to commit a violation of the rights they should respect and guarantee” was verified, which was generally favored by generalized situations of impunity of those grave violations, propitiated and tolerated by the absence of judicial guarantees and inefficiency of the judicial institutions to face or contain them.109 138. In this case, the mentioned public officials made use, in exercise of their investiture, of the means provided to them by the State to issue their statements and speeches, and therefore they have an official nature. Even though it is not necessary to know of the totality of the events occurred in Venezuela that affected the media or its employees, or the totality of statements or speeches issued by high state authorities, what is relevant is, for the effects of the present case and the context in which the facts occurred, that the content of those pronouncements was repeated on several occasions during that period. However, it has not been proven that those speeches prove or reveal, themselves, the existence of a State policy. Additionally, having established the object of the present case (supra paras. 53 through 63) sufficient evidentiary elements have not been provided in order to prove acts or omissions of other state bodies or structures, through which the exercise of a public power, corresponding to a State policy, in the argued terms, is manifested. 139. In a democratic society it is not only legitimate, but on occasions it is a duty of state authorities, to issue statements with regard to matters of public interest. However, upon doing so they are submitted to certain limitations since they must verify in a reasonable, but not necessarily exhaustive, manner the facts on which they base their opinions, 110 and they should do so with a diligence even greater to the one employed by individuals due to their high investiture, the ample scope and possible effects their expressions may have on certain sectors of the population, and in order to avoid that citizens and other interested people receive a manipulated version of specific facts.111 Additionally, they must take into consideration that as public officials they have a position of guarantor of the fundamental rights of people and, therefore, their statements cannot ignore those rights112 or constitute forms of direct or indirect interference or harmful pressure on the rights of those who seek to contribute with public deliberation through the expression and diffusion of their thoughts. This duty of special care is specifically true in situations of greater social conflict, alterations of public order or social or political polarization, precisely because of the set of risks they may imply for certain people or groups at a given time. 109 Cf., among others, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 38; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra note 38; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 80; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 31; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 53; Case of Almonacid Arellano et. al. V. Chile, supra note 26; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 44; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 84; and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 49. 110 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 71, para. 79; and Case of Apitz Berbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 131. 111 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 71, para. 79; and Case of Apitz Berbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 131. 112 131. Case of Apitz Berbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para.