63 . 241. Based on the evidentiary elements provided, the Tribunal considers that it is possible to determine that Mr. Colmenares was injured by pellets. However, sufficient evidentiary elements have not been provided to determine if it was a state agent who shot Mr. Colmenares or that, under such circumstances, state agents did not protect him, even when they had the possibility to do so. That situation prevented Messrs Colmenares and Pedro Nikken from continuing with their journalistic tasks under that circumstance. * * * 242. The Commission argues that on August 21, 2003 the reporter Noé Pernía was verbally attacked by a leader of the “Bolivarian Circles” while covering a union protest of a group of employees of the Mayor’s Office of the Municipality of Libertador. The representatives added he had received threats against his life. 243. In a video presented by the representatives it can be observed that some journalists receive statements from a political leader within the framework of a protest of union members. The taping of the interview shows that the person interviewed and one of the people accompanying her threatened one of the journalists before leaving.249 244. The attacks suffered by Mr. Noe Pernía were denounced by the proxies of RCTV before the 2° Public Prosecutors’ Office on August 27, 2003. 250 According to the representatives, the Public Prosecutors’ Office did not perform any action and requested the dismissal, which was ordered in January 2007.251 The State did not provide any information regarding this fact. Since there is no evidence that the Public Prosecutors’ Office carried out any diligence, this Court has verified a lack of diligence in the actions of that body. 245. The Court considers that based on the evidence available in the case file it is possible to consider as proven the alleged verbal attacks of an individual against Mr. Noe Pernia. * * * 246. The Commission argued that on March 3, 2004 the cameraman, Carlos Colmenares, was injured with a firearm in the ankle while covering, with his journalistic team, protests of groups that oppose the government, in Caracas. 252 The representatives indicated that Mr. Colmenares was in complete rest for several months. The State argued that Mr. Colmenares’ statements are contradictory. 247. The Court observes that Mr. Pedro Nikken, in his affidavit, coincided with the account of the facts presented by the Commission; he mentioned that two “people on a motorcycle” 249 The video offered proof of an interview carried out by journalists of RCTV and other media within the framework of what seems to be a protest. The person interviewed (presumably Lina Ron), addressed one of the journalists (we do not know exactly which one since there are several microphones) and states his disapproval of the questions asked. One of the journalists asked her if she agreed with the pacific nature of the protest, to which the protester responded that they should not challenge her. The other screams heard cannot be made out while threats can. The women interviewed leaves, while one of the persons who accompanies her points at a journalist. Cf. video marked "Noé Pernía" (appendix 40 to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence). 250 Cf. Complaint filed on August 27, 2003 before the Public Prosecutors’ Office (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folios 1151-1153). 251 Cf. final arguments of the representatives (dossier of merits, volume VIII, folio 2499). The Commission argued in its application that “[o]n March 3, 2004 RCTV’s cameraman, Carlos Colmenares, was injured with a firearm in his ankle while covering the protests held in Caracas by the political opposition against the Government of President Chávez. This was the second time Mr. Colmenares was shot. The facts were assigned to the 21 Public Prosecutors’ Office with full jurisdiction at a national level, who ordered the case be filed, even though on a later date the reopening of the case was requested.” 252