40 . 140. The Commission considered that a “reasonable means of protection” of possible erroneous interpretations of the content of the mentioned political speeches, would have been the realization of a clear and evident public condemnation to the possibly threatening acts against the personal integrity of the directors, journalists, and other employees of the station, in order to prevent aggressions against them. In fact, in its Special Report on Venezuela of 2003 the Commission issued a specific recommendation to maintain the public condemnation of the attacks against social communicators, in order to prevent future attacks.113 The Commission also argued that another reasonable means of prevention would have been “an effective compliance of the precautionary measures requested by the Commission and subsequently of the provisional measures ordered by the Court.” 141. In this regard, the State argued that “the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has always been firm and categorical in the condemnation of any act of violence of any nature, and specifically, different institutions, bodies, and authorities of the national government have condemned and repelled any act of violence against journalists and employees of the media, as well as any type of attack on journalistic teams and physical headquarters of the different communication firms.”114 At the public hearing the witness Andrés Izarra stated that “[he has] condemned [the acts of aggression against journalists] publicly, both as a journalist and as minister,” but that he did not remember dates and circumstances in which he had done it. Additionally, the State indicated during the hearing that “as the Commission itself acknowledged in the case of Perozo et al., the President of the Republic has publicly expressed his most energetic condemnation of the acts of violence against communication workers” and that those pronouncements “have not been limited to the President of the Republic, but instead they have included the Executive Vice-President of the Republic and the Ombudsman, among other high State authorities.” 142. The Court considers that, of the elements provided by the State to prove the previous statements,115, the existence of public callings that prove a “firm and categorical” condemnation of “any act of violence […] against journalists and media employees” cannot be concluded. In the context of the facts of the present case, it is possible to consider that the appropriate behavior of high public authorities with regard to acts of aggression against journalists due to their role as communicators in a democratic society, would have been the public manifestation of disapproval of those acts. 143. Besides the aforementioned, even though it is true that there is an intrinsic risk to journalistic activity, the people who work for a specific social communication firm can see the situations of risk they would normally face exacerbated if that firm is the object of an official discourse that may cause, suggest actions, or be interpreted by public officials or sectors of the society as instructions, instigations, or any form of authorization or support for the commission of acts that may put at risk or violate the life, personal safety, or other rights of people who exercise journalistic tasks or whoever exercises that freedom of expression. 113 IACHR. Report on the Human Rights Situation in Venezuela, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.118doc. 4 rev. 2, December 29, 2003, paragraph 391. 114 It also argued that “we have adopted the measures established in our legal code to try to avoid any type of attack against the social communication media firms and the people who work at them, which can be verified with the series of measures adopted to comply with the precautionary measures agreed on by the Court in the present case, including making several security bodies available for the protection of journalists and other people dedicated to the activity of social communication, as well as of the physical headquarters and offices of the communication firms.” 115 Cf. video (appendix 61 to the State’s final arguments) and press release from the Ombudsman of December 10, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume XXV, folio 9233).