b) “Among the phenomena and the curious events that have taken place in [Venezuela], something unusual occurred, […] once the traditional political parties that were logically called on to exercise the task of opposition to the new Government were weakened, […] the media occupied the place corresponding to the intermediaries between the State or the Government, to the parties, the opposition parties. They adopted an implacable position, well known inside and outside the country, against the State, against the Government and, of course, against the representatives […] who compose the organs of the State. Evidently, [...] the Government was forced to defend itself in the face of this situation.” c) “[The] Government, with indisputable popular support, [...] was victimized by the media, as was evident to those who support the Government [...]. Consequently, […] those grass-roots sectors, who were not exactly educated and prepared, were prejudiced against the media and reacted faced with the systematic, coordinated and massive aggression of the media against the new Government, as, unfortunately, they have reacted on some occasions.” d) “Everything [was done] to investigate the cases, such as sending letters to the competent organs of the State [...]. The Minister of Foreign Affairs telephoned Radio Caracas Televisión [...] and invited them to come to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to coordinate with those concerned how protection would be provided, as is the case with all measures to protect human rights. They replied that they did not think it was advisable, [...] to go to the […] Ministry, owing to the lack of security that sometimes reigned in the center of Caracas. They were offered all guarantees [...] to carry out this meeting, whose aim was to comply with the provisional measures and implement them fully and effectively [...].” e) “In view of the silence, [it was] thought advisable, in order to have a written record of this situation, to send a letter to the people of [RCTV] in order to inform them that [the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] was always willing to duly process the precautionary or provisional measures granted to them by the inter-American human rights organs, […] and also to provide them with any information they might require in that respect […].” f) “There is information that proves completely and irrefutably the State’s intention to comply with the measures […].” “There was insufficient communication and response from the State to implement these measures [sic].” g) During the investigation “the complainants and the witnesses were interviewed and evidence related to the acts investigated was sought and collected.” “There were obstacles which arose and occurred to prevent […] implementation in the last link of the chain [through shortcomings] [... b]ut, it is not because of these shortcomings [that one can] say that there was no intention to truly comply with such measures […].” h) “There has never been any negligence in compliance with the precautionary measures and the provisional measures, the responsibility for