64 . took them out of that location and transported them to an ambulance, because there were no police officers around who could be asked for protection; that the opposition’s protest had been going on for several days and that is was “officers in green uniforms belonging to the Venezuelan Armed Forces” who fired shots at them. 253 On his part, Mr. Colmenares, in his statement before the Court, coincided with the Comission’s version and stated that once the shot stopped a motorized unit of the emergency body belonging to the municipality took him out of that location on a motorcylce, taking him very far away from where the events were taking place and he was later helped by an ambulance found at that location. Mr. Colmenares did not identify who had shot him.254 248. On March 3, 2004 the order to start the investigation for the alleged commission of an illicit act in detriment of Mr. Colmenares was ordered. 255 Several actions regarding evidence were carried out, such as the victim’s statement in March 2004 and technical opinions. The result of the legal medical exam practiced on Mr. Colmenares characertized his injuries as of a mid-seriousness.256 In September 2005 the filing of the actions was ordered since having performed all technical diligences it was not possible to determine those allegedly responsible for the fact, “there were no grounds to request the prosecution of any specific person.”257 On March 12, 2007 the Thirty-Sixth First Instance Court of Caracas in Control Functions of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, declared a petition to reopen the investigation inadmissible, considering that it would be irrelevant to order the Public Prosecutors’ Office to continue with the investigation because the elements indicated were not enough for the individualization of the attacker, since it is not enough to determine the body of the crime and how it was committed without establishing their cause-effect relationship with the accused party.258 249. The Court considers, based on the evidentiary elements available, that Mr. Colmenares was injured with a bullet. However, sufficient evidentiary elements have not been presented to determine if it was a state agent who shot him or if 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. * * * 250. The Commission stated that on March 3, 2004 a police officer on a motorcycle ran his front tire over one of Mrs. Anahís Cruz’s feet, while she was covering a protest of the 253 Cf. statement offered by Pedro Antonio Nikken García before a notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5593-5596). 254 Cf. statement offered by Carlos Colmenares at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on August 7, 2008. 255 Cf. order to file of September 12, 2005 by the 21° National Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office with Full Jurisdiction (dossier of evidence, volume XXVII, folios 9802-9803). 256 Cf. order to file of September 12, 2005 by the 21° National Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office with Full Jurisdiction (dossier of evidence, volume XXVII, folios 9802-9803). 257 Official Letter N°FMP-21-NN-0891-2005 of September 14, 2005 addressed to the Comptroller General of the Republic (dossier of evidence, volume XXVII, folio 9804), and order to file of September 12, 2005 by the 21° National Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office with Full Jurisdiction (dossier of evidence, volume XXVII, folios 9802-9803). 258 Cf. decision of the 36° First Instance Court in Control Duties of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas of March 12, 2007 (dossier of evidence, volume XXVII, folios 9843-9847).