18 such incidents, the mass media "initiated a knife-edge media campaign in which the population was openly prompted to join the desestabilization acts, and it also fostered, in a systematic and permanent way, acts to desestabilize […] peace and law and order, [...and] the disobedience of laws and authority [by means of the broadcast] of messages covered in fear, hate and discrimination against some sectors of the population, government’s supporters, despite of being clearly forbidden by the domestic and international legislation". The State pointed out that “the act of declaration of the de facto Government in Miraflores Palace, was honored by the participation and presence of several owners and managers of mass media of the country, among them […], it stands out the presence of the Director […] and one of the shareholders of the television station “Globovisión”, alleged victim in this case. 63. The State mentioned that the arguments of the other parties to the case "are oriented to question the free and institutional exercise, in line with the legal system, of the sovereign authority that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has as a free and sovereign State in the international community”. It further asserted that “considering the statements made by the Commission and the representatives, when questioning the validity and content of the constitutional text of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as the exercise of the judicial function by the maximum tribunal of the Republic, the exercise of the legislative power by the body which is constitutionally in charge of legislating […] and the exercise of the administrative authority of the State to control and monitor the strict compliance with the law”, the State deems that such statements constitute “clear and evident interferences with the exercise of the sovereign powers of the State, which have been constitutionally attributed to it". C.2 Facts 64. The Court has long held that, at the international level, State responsibility under the American Convention can only required after the State has had the opportunity to redress it by its own means, and attribution of said responsibility to a State for acts by State agents or private individuals must be established based on the specificities and circumstances of each case.31 The international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary,32 reinforcing and complementary nature.33 65. Whenever a case is brought to the Jurisdiction of the Court in order to determine whether the State Party to the American Convention is responsible for alleged human rights violations, enshrined therein or other applicable treaties, the Tribunal should analyze the specific facts of the case in light of the applicable provisions and determine whether the persons who have turned to the Inter-American system are the victims of such alleged violations and, if applicable, whether the State should adopt certain measures of reparations in their favor. All this, in the exercise of Court’s contentious jurisdiction. 31 Cf. Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra nota 22, para. 113. 32 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 47. 33 Cf. Preamble of the American Convention on Human Rights. Cf. The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights. (Art. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982, Series A Nº2, para. 31; The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986, Series A Nº6, para. 26; and Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61.