91 . provided it could not be concluded that CONATEL has started the legal actions it refers to in its official letters with any consequence on the transmission of the mentioned program. 359. In this same sense, the Tribunal observes that the Commission in its Report on merits concluded the following:347 205. In this regard, the Commission points out that there is no evidence in the dossier that refers to the legal actions mentioned in the official letters and the direct consequences they had on the broadcasting of said program, which would allow us to understand and analyze them as ulterior responsibilities for the alleged abusive exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression through the broadcasting of that program within the framework of Article 13(2) of the Convention. In the dossier there are only several letters forwarded by the president of RCTV to CONATEL indicated that the objective of the program in question was to inform the public of facts verified on a daily basis within the Venezuelan Society. 360. In what refers to the purpose sought by these official letters, in the sense of indirectly affecting and pressuring the directors regarding the content of the information broadcasted, the Tribunal points out that the Commission and the representatives have not provided evidence or elements that prove that the issuing of the official letters has affected the right of the alleged victims to seek, receive, and impart information. Likewise, they have not presented evidence that would invalidate the content of the official letters, issued in accordance with a regulation in force in Venezuela. 361. Based on the aforementioned, the Court considers that it has not been proven that the issuing of the official letters by CONATEL constituted an indirect or illegal restriction to the alleged victims’ right to seek, receive, and impart information, which would be a violation to Articles 13(1) and 13(3) of the Convention in this sense. D) Interventions to the broadcasts of RCTV 362. The Commission stated that Mr. Eduardo Sapene Granier had to allow the transmission of multiple interventions by different officials, state entities, and organizations who used the station’s signal during April 8 and 9, 2002, during the national strike and days before the coup d’etat occurred in Venezuela. Likewise, it argued that on April 13, 2002 a group of soldiers of the Military House showed up at the station’s installations and made Mr. Sapene Granier close RCTV’ signal so that the State’s station could transmit through RCTV’s signal. It argued that soldiers of the Military House, agents of the DISIP, and the Army had carried out other interventions directly at the antennas located in the sector of Mecedores, from where the RCTV signal is issued. The Commission stated that these interventions are not compatible with the Convention, added to the fact that officials of the Venezuelan government of different ranks used the station’s signal. 363. The Commission and the representatives concluded that these interventions constituted an indirect restriction since they affected the content of the information that on that opportunity could have been transmitted by Mr. Eduardo Sapene Granier, as VicePresident in charge of the information of the television station RCTV, and the social communication employees that work at that station, individualized as alleged victims, upon imposing on them certain content or preventing that other information that wanted to be imparted be transmitted. 364. In order to determine if the State is responsible for the alleged violations, the Court will divide its analysis in i) abusive use of nationwide government broadcasts; and ii) interruptions of RCTV’s signal. 347 IACHR. Report on merits No. 119/06 of October 26, 2006, paras. 211 to 215 (dossier of evidence, volume I, folio 51).