12 that special situation of relative vulnerability 19 inasmuch as it exists only the possibility, which implies that it could or could not happened, coupled with that pursuant to the Commission, most of the statements did not constitute a violation of the Convention. In fact, it was mentioned in the judgment that, even when it does not spring from the declarations that the unfortunate facts that occurred have been attributed to the authorities, neither that the self-identification with the editorial line of Globovisión was a conditio sine qua non lead the petitioners to a situation of vulnerability, the State is necessarily held responsible for the non-compliance with the obligation to guarantee the exercise of the right to freely seek, receive and impart information and the right to personal liberty. According to the theory of responsibility, the Court pointed out, in the judgment from which I dissent, upon analyzing the influence the alleged victims had on the incidents, that: “74. The Court recalls that in the instant case, its role is to determine, as an international court of human rights exercising its contentious jurisdiction, the State's responsibility under the American Convention for the alleged violations and not the responsibility of Globovisión, or of its managers, shareholders or employees, in relation to certain facts or historical incidents that occurred in Venezuela, nor even their role or performance as a social media. The Court does not determine the rights of Globovisión, in its capacity as company, corporation or legal entity. Even if it is true that Globovisión or its personnel has committed the acts that the State understands they did, this does not provide a justification for failing to comply with the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee human rights. Dissent and different opinions or ideas are consubstantial to the pluralism that must rule in a democratic society. The questioning regarding the causal link highlighted the need to examine the participation of the victims in the occurrence of the incidents mentioned in the judgment, in order not to try or condemn them, in view of the fact that this Court is not competent to try the civilians of States Parties, but on the contrary, to determine the existence of guilt of the State as well as to determine what lead to that situation of relative vulnerability. It seems appropriate to emphasize that the State produced evidence in this sense and the Court declared it was inadmissible20. It does not spring from the State's arguments that the State was holding the alleged victims responsible but, on the contrary, it was invalidating the ground for exemption from liability. Unfortunately, the evidence produced to demonstrate this exemption was not admitted, as has been mentioned; however, I believe that it was one of the answers expected during the trial from the alleged victims or the State, within the framework of the social harmony that should result from all judgment in a society or a nation; therefore, there is no possibility to try this ground for exemption from liability. The foregoing comments and observations in relation to the judgment from which I dissent, are facts that serve as the basis for the questioning about the service of administration of justice and the Venezuelan judicial system mentioned in the judgment in the subsequent subchapter, which deals with, as this subchapter did, the hindrance or inability of some employees of the media to do their jobs (final part of paragraph 160) 19 This concept was first introduced by the Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants and then judgments in the: Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” V. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Para. 174. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico V. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005 20 See judgment in process (Order) of the President of the Court of March 18, 2008, para. 19 and 28