83 . body to denounce the alleged facts, nor was evidence of any proceedings in this sense provided. Therefore, the Court will not issue a ruling regarding that argued by the representatives. * * * 330. Upon evaluating if the investigations were a means to guarantee the right to freedom of expression and to humane treatment, as well as to prevent violations to those rights, the Court takes into consideration that the plurality of facts denounced jointly could have contributed to making the investigation complex in global terms, even though the investigation of each individual fact did not necessarily imply any greater complexity. 331. The Court observes that in the majority of the investigations started there is an unjustified procedural inactivity; and that in some investigations not all the diligences necessary to verify the existence of the facts were carried out (supra paras. 318 and 322). Therefore, this Tribunal considers that in these cases the totality of the investigations did not constitute an effective means to guarantee the rights of the alleged victims to humane treatment and to seek, receive, and impart information. * * * 332. From the analysis of the facts argued and the evidence offered, it was established that the mentioned pronouncements by high public officials placed the alleged victims employed by this specific communication firm and not only its owners, directors, or who determine their editorial line, in a position of greater relative vulnerability regarding the State and specific sectors of society (supra paras. 131 and 143 through 149). Specifically, the reiteration of the content of those pronouncements and speeches during that period could have contributed to emphasize an environment of hostility, intolerance, or rejection by a part of the sectors of the population toward the alleged victims. 333. Thus, the totality of proven facts that affected the alleged victims occurred when they were trying to carry out their journalistic activities. In the majority of the facts proven (supra para. 265), on several opportunities and in specific situations or events, which could have had a public interest or the nature or relevance of a news story that could have eventually been broadcasted, the alleged victims saw their possibilities to seek and receive information limited, restricted, or annulled, since journalistic teams were attacked, intimidated, or threatened by actions carried out by individuals. Likewise, the intimidating or frightening effect those facts, as well as others addressed against the station RCTV, such as the attacks against its headquarters (supra para. 130), could have generated on the people that were present and were employed at that time by said communication firm was clear for the Court. 334. Thus, the Court considers that the totality of the proven facts were forms of obstruction, hindrance, and intimidation to the exercise of the journalistic tasks of the alleged victims, expressed through attacks or situations that put their personal integrity at risk, which in the context of the mentioned pronouncements made by high public officials and of the omission of state authorities in their duty to offer due diligence in the investigations, constituted failures to comply with the state’s obligations to prevent and investigate the facts. Therefore, the State is responsible for the non-compliance of its obligation enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention to guarantee the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and the right to humane treatment, acknowledged in Articles 13(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention in detriment of Antonio José Monroy, Armando Amaya, Carlos Colmenares, David José Pérez Hansen, Erika Paz, Isabel Cristina