86 . and opinions, in such a way that the employment of “indirect methods or means” to restrict them is prohibited. The restrictive method set forth in Article 13(3) is not exhaustive nor does it prevent considering “any other means” or indirect methods of new technologies. Additionally, Article 13(3) of the Convention imposes of the State obligations to guarantee, even in the realm of the relationships between individuals, since it not only covers indirect governmental restrictions, but also “individual…controls” that produce the same result.334 In order for there to be a violation to Article 13(3) of the Convention it is necessary that the method or means effectively restrict, even if indirectly, the communication of ideas and opinions. 341. The statements mentioned, examined in the context in which they were produced, include opinions on the alleged actions or participation of RCTV, or of people linked to it, in events developed under circumstances of high political polarization and social conflicts in Venezuela, which is not included in the object of the present case (supra paras. 60 through 62). Regardless of the situation or motivation that these statements generated, in a State of Law conflictive situations must be dealt with through the methods established in the domestic legal system and pursuant with the applicable international standards. In the context of vulnerability faced by the alleged victims (supra para. 127 through 149) certain expressions included in the statements sub examine could have been perceived as threats and cause an intimidating effect, and even self-censorship, in the alleged victims, based on their relationship with the mentioned communication firm. However, the Tribunal considers that, based on the criteria mentioned in the previous paragraph, those other effects of said pronouncements were already analyzed supra, under Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 13(1) thereof. B) Hindrances on the access to official sources of information or state installations 342. The representatives argued that the alleged victims could not access official sources of information or State installations, which constituted an illegal restriction on the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information, as well as discriminatory treatment, in violation of Articles 13(1) and 24 of the Convention. The State should have permitted access of the journalists of RCTV to all official acts, based on the fact that they are of a public nature. The right to access sources of information is related to the principle of transparency and publicity of the acts of government. An unequal and discriminatory treatment was produced based on RCTV’s informative line. 343. The Commission did not argue that access of the journalistic teams of RCTV was prevented access to official sources of information or the violation of Article 24 of the Convention. 344. The State made emphasis on the fact that the Commission had not presented this argument and that the representatives did not prove their arguments. Additionally, it mentioned the fact that certain television stations could have entered more equipment to cover a specific event does not necessarily imply the violation of any right; and not all the acts that occur in a state office have a public nature. Likewise, it argued that it only correspond to the Ministry of Popular Power for Communication and Information and to the Ministry of Popular Power of the President’s Office to define the nature of official acts and the scope of its broadcast, as well as the events that are of a public nature. The State shall, through its communication policy, decide if it invites certain social communication firms. In Venezuela there are other ways of controlling the transparency in public administration, 334 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism. (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 71, para. 48.