16 54. Moreover, by means of a brief received on December 4, 2008 at the Secretariat, the representatives informed on a “new administrative sanction procedure [initiated by the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL)] against Globovisión" and they requested the Tribunal to “take into consideration these serious facts at the moment of delivering a judgment in this case”. This was also informed within the procedure of provisional measures. Based on the same reasons previously stated (supra para. 52 and 53) the Tribunal cannot consider those alleged facts. 55. Finally, by means of a brief received on January 16, 2009 by the Secretariat (supra para. 18) the representatives informed on an alleged "attack [against reporters, management and other employees of Globovisión"] by organized groups of people openly supporters of the National Government […] called “Grupo La Piedrita”, who at the dawn of January 1, 2009 fired a tear gas bomb against the premises of Globovisión and made serious threats to its personnel”. The representatives requested the Tribunal to “take into account these serious facts at the moment of making a decision" and presented that same information to the procedure of provisional measures. Based on the same reasons previously mentioned, the Tribunal cannot consider those alleged facts. C) Facts and Allegations 56. The parties have forwarded to the Court a series of arguments in reference to facts of this case and the context in which said facts would have occurred, as well as other factual and legal arguments addressed to disprove the other parties’ allegations that do not form part of the proceeding before this Tribunal. In consideration of the above mentioned, the Court deems it is pertinent to point out the facts that it shall consider in this Judgment. C.1 Facts presented by the parties 57. In the application lodged with the Court, the Commission defined the factual framework of the instant case under the title “Considerations of Fact”. In that section, the Commission included a sub-section in which it described, in six paragraphs and in general terms, the political situation and the context of “threats [and attacks] against social communicators” in which the facts of this case would have occurred. Based on the reports on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela of 2003, as well as the Annual Report of 2004, the Commission stated that, at the time the incidents addressed in this case began, Venezuela “was going through a period of political and institutional conflict that led to an extreme polarization of society". 58. Moreover, the Commission pointed out that on April 9, 2002, a strike called by the Workers’ Confederation of Venezuela and Fedecámaras began and on April 11, that same year, an opposition march took place, demanding the resignation of the President of the Republic. This situation, according to the Commission, led to tragic acts of violence that culminated with a large number of injuries and deaths, an attack on the constitutional government through a coup d’ état and the subsequent restoration of the constitutional order. The prevailing situation of Venezuela generated an environment of ongoing attacks and threats against reporters, cameramen, photographers and other workers of mass media. 59. As to the facts of this case, the Commission presented approximately 54 facts that occurred between October 2001 and August 2005, consisting in statements of government officials and alleged acts of aggressions, threats and harassment committed against the alleged victims. Furthermore, the Commission made reference to the existence of five