38 the press, which do not facilitate the public debate and exchange of opinions and ideas, necessary to live in democracy”82. 135. Several situations triggered reactions from OAS political bodies. For example, the Permanent Council of the Organization, by means of Resolution 833, of December 16, 2002, decided:83 To urge the Government of Venezuela to ensure full enjoyment of freedom of expression and of the press and to exhort all sectors of Venezuelan society to contribute to promoting peace and tolerance among all Venezuelans and all social actors to refrain from encouraging political confrontation and violence. 136. It is appropriate to recall that in the time of the facts of the instant case, the Court issued several orders requesting the State of Venezuela to adopt protective provisional measures in favor of people related to mass media.84 During that time, the Court verified, on several occasions, non-compliance with the orders on provisional measures.85 137. The State itself acknowledged that several violent situations against reporters of different mass media occurred during such periods. In fact, although the State brought it up in the arguments in order to disqualify the causality link between the facts of the case at hand and the official speech, the State referred to 13 facts in which reporters and employees of “the official media[…] have been subjected, as the alleged victims mentioned it […], to attacks during the performance of their duties" and it also argued that those facts would prove "that workers of the State media as well as workers of the television station Globovisión were attacked, despite of the fact that the alleged official speech has never referred to the employees of State media”. 138. It is within this context that high-ranking public officials gave the statements referred to in the Commission’s application,86 in a television show and in public interventions, on different dates and at different events, from 2001 to 2005, which were 82 Cf. IACHR Report of the Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression in the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights 2000. OEA/Ser./L/II.111, doc.20 rev., April 16, 2001. 83 Cf. Organization of American States, “SUPPORT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE IN VENEZUELA AND THE FACILITATION EFFORTS OF THE OAS SECRETARY GENERAL” OEA/Ser.G. CP/RES. 833 (1348/02), December 16, 2002. 84 Cf. Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002; Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 8, 2003; Matter of "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia" Newspapers regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2004; and Case of Globovisión Television Station regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2004. 85 Cf. Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 20, 2003; November 21, 2003; December 2, 2003; September 8, 2004 and September 12, 2005; Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 8, 2003; December 2, 2003 and July 4, 2006; and Joint Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on several matters (Liliana Ortega et al.; Luisiana Rios et al.; Luis Uzcátegui; Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez) regarding Venezuela of May 4, 2004. 86 Besides, the representatives referred to three more statements of the President of the Republic and six statements of other public officials that, according to them, would help "explaining" the alleged violations. Even though the representatives may put forward those facts that allow explaining, clarifying and disproving the facts mentioned in the application, this Court considers that those other statements do not explain these incidents inasmuch as they do not make reference to them but to statements different from the ones exposed therein. Based on the foregoing, the Court shall not consider those other statements.