65 organized and then, she said that a liquid was thrown at her201. In the statements, Mrs. Angola ratified the facts already mentioned202, which were reported before the Public Prosecutor Offices of Caracas.203 225. The Court notes that the complaint was lodged more than two months after the incident, for alleged verbal attacks against Mrs. Angola. The State informed that on September 20, 2007 Mrs. Angola was interviewed, though it did not prove whether such proceeding was carried out. Besides, the Court notes procedural inactivity on the part of the Attorney General's Office which has not been justified by the State, given the fact that the first proceeding was carried out more than four years after the opening of the investigation. 226. The Court considers as proven the fact that unidentified private individuals prevented Mrs. Carla Angola from doing her job on that occasion. There is no other evidence that corroborates the police presence at the scene of the incidents or that, if they happened to be there, they had not protected the alleged victim, knowing that they could. * * * 227. The Commission argued that on August 9, 2003 a group of demonstrators stayed at the entrance of Globovisión's headquarters for several hours, shouting insults at the station and preventing the employees from entering or leaving204. The representatives mentioned that the premises of Globovisión were violently taken and that the walls and doors of the television station were hit and scratched. The State made no reference to this fact in particular. 228. The representatives produced the statements of Claudia Rojas and José Natera, alleged victims of the case, as evidence of this incident. Both of them declared, without specifying date or circumstances, that “violent supporters of the ruling party” on one occasion, gathered at the headquarters of the television station to organize a demonstration outside the premises. Both testimonies coincide in expressing the tension that they and other workers of the television station and even some of their relatives, felt as a consequence of those facts205. In addition, the Commission tendered as evidence for this fact the complaint lodged with the 68° Public Prosecutor Office of Caracas Metropolitan Area206. However, there is no evidence proving that an investigation has been conducted (infra para. 302 and 318). 201 Cf. video (appendix 3 to the application) 202 Cf. Affidavit rendered by Carla Maria Angola Rodríguez on April 15, 2008 (records of evidence, volume XXXIII, pages 8774-8778) and Request for justification of June 17, 2003 presented before the 20º Municipal Court of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area, containing the statements of Carla María Angola Rodríguez (records of evidence, volume IV, page 914). 203 Cf. complaint lodge with the 2º Public Prosecutor Office of the Attorney General’s Office of the Judicial District of Caracas Metropolitan Area on March 10, 2003 (records of evidence, volume IV, appendix 8 to the application, pages 965 - 975) and brief of October 26, 2004 presented to the 68º Public Prosecutor Office of Caracas Metropolitan Area (records of evidence, volume V, pages 1671-1749). 204 On August 9, 2003, a group of protesters gathered at the entrance to Globovisión’s headquarters for the space of several hours, shouting slogans at the station and preventing workers from entering or leaving. 205 Cf. statement rendered by Claudia Rojas Zea and José Rafael Natera Rodríguez (records of evidence, volume X, appendix 50 to the brief of pleadings, motions and arguments, page 3040 and 3053). 206 Cf. brief of October 26, 2004 forwarded to the 68º Public Prosecutor Office of Caracas Metropolitan Area (records of evidence, volume V, pages 1671-1749).