108 396. The Commission alleged that the reporters of Globovisión would have been prevented from performing their jobs because of facts marked by the use of physical and verbal violence that were “accompanied by other facts such as the obstruction of the lens of the cameras with hands or handkerchiefs, the cornering and blows to the camera and microphones, the violent plundering of work instruments, the damage to vehicles which are property of Globovisión while the workers were in them or when the vehicles were parked, theft of video tapes which contained information gathered at the place of the events or other technical instruments or protective equipment such as cameras, anti- gas masks and radios, throwing of stones, liquids and others objects to workers of Globovisión or to the vehicles they were in". The Commission further alleged that in those cases, “the property was fully identified as the property of the television station” and that “the nature of the facts allowed concluding that the motive was the damage in itself and not the commission of other crimes”. It also argued that the damage to the property of Globovisión constituted “a way of pressure that restricts the exercise of the right to freedom of expression by means of intimidation and fear of being the target of the attack”. 397. Whereas the Commission did not specify the facts that provoked the violent acts against the property and premises of Globovisión, the representatives pointed out 17 specific facts in the application that, according to them, affected the coverage of information and opinions of the news team of that media352. The representatives, in turn, alleged that those 17 facts constituted the violation of the right to property of Mr. Federico Ravell and Guillermo Zuloaga, in their capacity as shareholders of Globovisión. They alleged that such facts constitute “conclusive evidence of a series of pecuniary damage caused to recording equipment, vehicles, premises and other property of Globovisión that have deprived the station and its shareholders of their use and enjoyment, which amounts to an unlawful restriction or in this case, deprivation of the property under the terms specified in the text of Article 21 of the Convention. They pointed out that, according to the case-law, they may claim protection of property, under the terms of the judgment rendered by the Court in the case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú and Cantos V.Argentina. They alleged that this violation was, to a good extent, a means for the violation of other human rights; therefore, the purpose would not only be to protect the property as a mere pecuniary or commercial interest but also to provide international protection in situations where the violation of Article 21 is connected with the abridgement of other provisions of the Convention. The representatives mentioned that the damage to the property of the company Globovisión was not “totally covered by the insurance policy” and they specified that this also constituted the arbitrary intervention inside a media company to determine its role as a media in order to fully exercise freedom of expression. Besides, they alleged that, as a result of such facts, Globovisión has gone to great economical expenses as to security, trying to protect the premises and the personal integrity of its workers; which implied an “additional punishment” for the exercise of the freedom of expression, inasmuch as it could reassign the same items to the broadcasting of programs. 398. The State made no specific allegation regarding the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression in this sense. As to the alleged violation of the right to property, the State repeated that the facts and arguments, which are subject-matter of the international proceeding, are those determined in the application of the Commission; therefore, it requested to Court to not analyze them. Besides, it argued that there is no evidentiary support of this argument, since the only evidence tendered would be the sayings of the alleged victims. It also mentioned that the petitioners themselves have acknowledged that 352 The referred incidents would have occurred on November 22, 2001; January 9, 2002; February 18, 2003; April 3, 2002; June 13, 2002; July 9, 2002; September 4, 2002; September 11, 2002; September 21, 2002; November 18, 2002; December 3, 2003; January 18, 2004; March 1, 2004; May 29, 2004, two other incidents occurred that day; January 23, 2005 and July 11, 2005.