20 59. Added to this, the Court takes into account the information presented in the expert opinions provided in the case of Ríos et al. on this issue, which have been added to the file in the instant case. Thus, expert witness Eduardo Ulibarri Bilbao referred to the existence of “threats, harassment and attacks against the journalists of RCTV and other media considered ‘enemies.’”66 While expert witness Toby Mendel indicated that “President [Chávez] made several declarations that were very hostile towards the private media, linked to implicit and explicit threats of revoking their licenses. Among other matters, these declarations accused the private media of ‘poisoning’ the minds of the people, transmitting terrorist propaganda, and inventing lies to promote panic and fear.”67 The Court also highlights the evidence provided to this case with regard to the declarations made by various officials and government publications concerning the editorial content of RCTV and the actions and opinions of its shareholders, executives and employees (infra paras. 75 to 86). d) Conclusion 60. The Court emphasizes the seriousness of the events that occurred between April 11 and 14, 2002, which resulted in the coup d’état in Venezuela. The Court also stresses that the facts related to the coup d’état and the conduct of the media during those days led to a radicalization of the statements made by government officials against the media. 61. The Court concludes that it has sufficient evidence to determine that the facts of this case took place in a tense situation following the coup d’état, during which a political polarization occurred that was revealed by a noticeable trend towards radicalization of the positions of the sectors involved. Consequently, there is evidence to consider proven the existence of a context marked by the insistent discourse of the Venezuelan Government accusing the private media, including RCTV, of “being enemies of the government,” “perpetrators of the coup,” and “fascists” and of causing “very serious psychological harm to the people of Venezuela,” among other matters. As will be referred to below (infra para. 75 to 86), the different statements of the officials also mentioned the possibility of not renewing the concessions of the media whose position was contrary to the government. Thus, in the instant case, the Court considers proved, “the ‘environment of intimidation’ fostered by statements of senior State officials against independent media outlets” and “an official discourse discrediting the professionalism of journalists.” A.2. Radio Caracas Televisión RCTV, C.A., its shareholders, executives and journalists 62. Radio Caracas Televisión RCTV, C.A. (hereinafter “RCTV”) had operated as a VHF (very high frequency) free-to-air television station with national coverage in Venezuela since 1953 when it was granted the respective concession. 68 The television network transmitted entertainment, information and opinion programs and, according to its executives, its editorial line was critical of the government of then President Chávez69 beginning with the start of his 66 Expert opinion provided by Eduardo Ulibarri Bilbao dated June 30, 2008 (merits file, folio 1341). 67 Expert opinion provided by Toby Mendel dated July 21, 2008 (merits file, folio 1356). Cf. License authorizing RCTV to operate as a VHF free-to-air television station issued by the Telecommunications Directorate of the Ministry of Communications on July 31, 1953 (evidence file, folio 2479). 68 In this regard, expert witness Antonio Pasquali indicated that “Radio Caracas Televisión renounced decorum and I and many others recognized this because it decided to be an outspoken spokesman of the dissent and, so it was until it was silenced.” Opinion provided by expert witness Pasquali during the public hearing in this case. Meanwhile, presumed victim Marcel Granier stated that he “would define [the editorial line of RCTV] as constitutional; it was a line that supported the preservation of democracy in Venezuela, which was always under threat.” Statement of presumed victim Marcel Granier during the public hearing in this case. Jaime Nestares Phelps, RCTV board member and shareholder indicated in his sworn statement that, “from the start, the critical spirit of RCTV […] annoyed [the] government [of President Hugo Chávez Frías].” Sworn statement of Jaime Nestares Phelps (merits file, folio 1424). Meanwhile, Soraya Castellano, Information Manager of the RCTV Vice Presidency for Information, mentioned in her 69