43 that the content of such statement was repeated on several occasions during such period. Nevertheless, it has not been proven that such speeches show or reveal, per se, the existence of a State policy. Besides, having the Court determined the subject-matter of this case (supra para. 57 to 75) it noted that no sufficient evidence has been furnished proving that actions or omissions carried out by state organs or structures, through which the public power is exercised, have been part of a State policy, according to the terms so alleged. 151. Certainly, in a democratic society it is not just legitimate but also, sometimes, a duty of the state authorities to make statements about issues of the public interest. Nevertheless, when doing so they have to verify reasonably, though not necessarily in an exhaustive manner, the truthfulness of the facts supporting their opinions,103 and this verification should be performed subject to a higher standard than that used by private parties, given the high level of credibility the authorities enjoy, the broad scope and possible effects their sayings may produce on certain sectors of the society and with a view to keeping citizens from receiving a distorted version of the facts.104 Furthermore, they should bear in mind that, as public officials, they are in a position of guarantors of the fundamental rights of the individual and, therefore, their statements cannot be such that they disregard said rights105 so that they must not amount to a form of interference with or pressure impairing the rights of those who intend to contribute to public deliberation by means of expression and dissemination of its thought. This duty of special care is particularly emphasized in those situations of greater social conflict, disorderly conducts or social and political bias, precisely because of the risks entailed for certain people or groups at a given time. 152. The Commission considered that a “means of reasonable prevention” of possible mistaken interpretations of the content of such political speeches would have been a clear and unequivocal public condemnation of the acts that potentially pose a threat to the personal integrity of the executives, reporters and other employees of the television station, in order to prevent the incidents. Nevertheless, it is relevant to mention that, in the Report on Merits, the Commission “took note of the fact that in April 2003, the President of the Republic issued an appeal “to respect journalists and treat them with dignity, as they deserve,” though it considered that “in such environment of recurrent statements", such public condemnation could have had the effect of prevention.106 153. In such respect, the State alleged that “the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has always been firm and clear in the condemnation of any type of violent act and specially, several institutions, bodies and authorities of the national government have condemned and repudiated some violent acts committed against reporters of Globovisión, as well as any other type of attack towards news team and premises of several mass media; in fact, measures have been adopted according to the domestic legal system, in order to try avoiding all type of attacks against the media and the employees working in there”. The State pointed out during the public hearing that "the President of the Republic himself, the Vice-President and the Ombudsman of the Venezuelan State have condemned the violent incidents and have appealed to their supporters in order to respect the media workers in 103 Cf. Case of Kimel V. Argentina, supra note 59, para. 79; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 131. 104 Cf. Case of Kimel V. Argentina, supra note 59, para. 79; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 131. 105 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 29, para. 131. 106 IACHR. Report on merits, para. 140 to 143 (records of evidence, volume I, pages 55-56).