105 not cover certain events due to the actions of private individuals have been already analyzed in the previous chapter, under the respective concepts. * * * 382. The Commission alleged that on November 12, 2004 a news team of Globovisión has been denied access to an event that took place at the Ministry of Defense, whose headquarters is the Army Command, in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Communication and Information invited all the private media to participate and Globovisión complied with the requirements to cover the event. It alleged that the official media as Venprés, Venezolana de Televisión and radio nacional YVKE were afforded access to the place. 383. The evidence that the Commission and the representatives tendered to classify these facts as barriers to access to official sources of information consist in a video of a transmission at the television station of that same day and the video shows the entrance to an area of the building where there are military officers walking 343. At the same time, the situation is narrated but there is no visible evidence that substantiate the alleged facts. The evidence does not suggest either who of the alleged victims that are members of the news team of Globovisión had been denied access to the military facilities. Finally, no evidence was tendered in order to prove that other media had, in fact, access to the sources of information. 384. The Commission alleged that on January 28, 2005 a news team of Globovisión was denied access to Fuerte Tiuna, on occasion of the hearing held in a trial against alleged Colombian paramilitary officers arrested in Venezuela; that the facts had to be transmitted via the telephone, since members of the Military Police, who were securing the place, impeded the news team from setting up the equipment in order to broadcast live images, despite Globovisión had complied with the forwarding of the letter requested as a condition to access the place. It pointed out that the official television station, Venezolana de Televisión, was allowed in to cover the story. 385. As to this alleged fact, the Commission and the representatives furnished as evidence the narration by telephone of what happened in said hearing by a reporter of Globovisión344. At the end of the narration, the reporter expresses that, despite the written request that Globovisión sent as a condition to access the place, they were denied entrance. However, the recording is insufficient to show the barrier to access to official sources of the alleged victims; besides, he allegedly sent letter has not been furnished and it neither proves that reporters from other media had access to the facility. 386. The Commission alleged that on February 15, 2005 a news team of Globovisión was refused permission to enter the Palacio de Miraflores to cover the visit of the President of Colombia. Reporter Aymara Lorenzo and her assistants, who were planning to broadcast live via microwave tone and who allegedly had complied with the requirements for their entry and the entry of the respective technical equipment, were informed at the entrance of the place that they could not access it since they were not in the accreditation list and that they should wait for an inspection of the equipment and the personnel. Later on, they were allowed in but they had to use a time-shifted broadcasting. 343 Cf. video (appendix 29 to the application) 344 Cf. video (appendix 30 to the application)