62 . 238. The Commission indicated that on August 19, 2003 a reporter and Mr. Carlos Colmenares, cameraman, were covering a protest in a neighborhood in Caracas; during the night there was a firefight against municipal police and Mr. Colmenares was injured on the right arm and leg.242 In its final written arguments the State indicated that the case was in its investigation phase and that Mr. Colmenares offered different versions of the facts in his statement before the Court. 239. The Court verified that the video presented by the Commission as evidence of these facts presents situations different to those argued by the Commission.243 In his affidavit, Mr. Pedro Nikken stated that “a motorcycle belonging to the Caracas police force stopped in front of them and the [co-pilot] turned around and shot [them] with a long weapon”, injuring Mr. Colmenares.244 In his statement before the Court Mr. Colmenares coincided with Mr. Nikken’s statement, indicating that he felt “pellets […] in part of his neck, arm, and legs”245 and that the person who shot him, who he could not identify, was 20 or 30 meters away, and he said that this attack had been recorded in a video forwarded to a public prosecutors’ office.246 This Tribunal points out that the mentioned video was not presented by any of the parties. 240. On August 26, 2003 the proxies of RCTV presented the corresponding complaint before the 2° Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas.247 Reports presented by the State, indicate that the mentioned injuries were not medically described; that a witness was interviewed; that in April 2006 the Legal Department of RCTV was asked to present a video containing the images taped by the reportorial team in order to carry out the corresponding expert examination; and that the case was in a preliminary phase.248 Given that the State admitted that a legal medical evaluation was not performed despite the complaint filed eight days after the fact occurred and that the State did not justify the reasons for not carrying out that action, this Tribunal considers it did not act with due diligence in the development of the investigation. 242 The Commission argued in its application that “[o]n August 19, 2003 the informative team of the RCTV’s program “El Observador”, made up by the reporter Pedro Nikken and the cameraman Carlos Colmenares, were covering a protest in the surroundings of the Urbanization “Las Acacias” of Caracas, named “El Cohetazo”. The police of the Mayor’s Office of the Libertador Municipality proceeded to suppress and break up the protest with tear gas bombs and pellets. In the night, there was a shoot-out with the municipal police and Mr. Carlos Colmenares was injured on his right arm and leg. This was the second time Mr. Pedro Nikken’s journalistic team received impacts from fire arms.” 243 Cf. video labeled “Carlos Colmenarez” (appendix 39 to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence). 244 Cf. statement offered by Pedro Antonio Nikken García before notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5593-5596). 245 Cf. statement offered by Carlos Colmenares in the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on August 7, 2008. 246 Cf. statement offered by Carlos Colmenares in the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on August 7, 2008. 247 Cf. Complaint filed by RCTV’s proxies before the 2° Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on August 26, 2003 (dossier of evidence, volume IV, appendix to the application 30, folios 1134-1138). 248 Cf. Report n˚DFGR-20.402 of March 15, 2005 (dossier of evidence, volume X, appendix A.6.10 to the response to the application, folio 3802); report n˚ DFGR-28.031 of May 9, 2006 (dossier of evidence, volume X, appendix A.6.6 to the response to the application A.6.6, folio 3774); report n˚ DFGR-00655 of February 8, 2007 (dossier of evidence, volume X, appendix A.6.3 to the response to the application, folio 3764); report n˚DFGRDVFGR-DGAP-DPDF-16-PRO-66-6584 of September 7, 2007 (dossier of evidence, volume X, appendix A.5 to the response to the application, folios 3737-3738, and report n˚DFGR-VFGR-DGAP-DPDF-08-PRO-66-10603-08 of October 23, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XXVI, folios 9242-9243).