107 regarding the alleged information provided by the Direction of Presidential Press at to the private nature of the meeting. It does not spring from the evidence furnished by the parties the identity of the remaining members of Globovisión’s team. The evidence offered is insufficient to establish that access to official sources was denied to the alleged victims. 392. The Commission alleged that, on an undetermined date, the President of the Criminal Judicial District of Caracas ordered that chains be deployed in various areas of the Palacio de Justicia in order to prevent access to the media, including Globovisión's workers. This took place even though the President of the Supreme Court of Justice said he would guarantee the media’s freedom of movement and passage through all areas of the Palacio. The representatives alleged that such incident took place on May 7, 2005. 393. The evidence furnished is a video in which a reporter, broadcasting from the Palacio de Justicia, explains the described situation350; the camera shows a chain with a sign that reads "no trespassing"; there are also a group of people seated on the floor who said to be reporters and expressed that they were not allowed in. The video also shows an interview with a reporter of the national chain whose access would have been restricted. The Court considers that the evidence furnished is insufficient to prove this fact; specially, the barrier placed on the alleged victims to access to official sources. On the contrary, according to the narration in the video, the measure would have affected all reporters present in the place; therefore this would not prove that the measure was adopted specifically against the reporters of said television station. The parties did not present statements or documents in support of the directions or declarations made by said public officials. * * * 394. It is deduced from the analysis of the alleged facts that the items of evidence tendered are not conclusive or sufficient to consider such facts proven. It does neither spring from the evidence presented by the parties that the alleged victims would have objected to the alleged barriers to access to the official sources of information (supra para. 302 to 304). 395. Based on the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that it has not been proven the existence of barriers to access to official sources of information or a discriminatory treatment on the part of state authorities towards the alleged victims, resulting in the violation of their right to freely seek, receive and impart information, under the terms of Articles 1(1) and 13(1) of the Convention, in this sense. X ARTICLES 13(1) AND 21 (RIGHT TO PROPERTY) 351 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 350 Cf. video (appendix 34 to the application) 351 Article 21 of the Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. . 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. 3. Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law.