4 Marcano, Winston Gutiérrez, Isabel Mavarez, Erika Paz, Samuel Sotomayor, Anahís Cruz, Herbigio Henríquez, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Pedro Nikken, Noé Pernía and Carlos Colmenares) the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression, particularly in the exercise of their work. - Must repair the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused to the victims (a los señores Luisiana Ríos; Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado; Eduardo Sapene Granier; Javier García; Isnardo Bravo; David Pérez Hansen; Wilmer Marcano; Winston Gutiérrez, Isabel Mavarez, Erika Paz, Samuel Sotomayor, Anahís Cruz, Herbigio Henríquez, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Pedro Nikken, Noé Pernía and Carlos Colmenares) by the acts of State authorities; and - Must pay the costs and expenses incurred in the processing of the case both at the national level and the expenses derived from the processing of the case before the Inter-American system. In keeping with my opinion and by way of example, it should be emphasized that there is an appropriate action within the Venezuelan legal system for the autonomous protection of constitutional rights, which has a similar regulation under the American Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 57 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter, CBRV), right to defense and due process (or which is the same, right to a fair trial and judicial protection) established in Articles 26 and 49 of the CBRV, right to humane treatment, established in Article 46 of the CBRV; the appropriate action is the action for the protection of constitutional rights or also called constitutional amparo set forth in Article 27 of the CBRV , which was developed in the Organic Law of Amparo of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees and in some binding judgments of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which could have been an effective remedy in Venezuela if immediately or directly taken, for the case there were no regular actions capable of protecting the persons demanding justice within the Venezuelan legal system. It spring from the court records followed before this Court that no action for constitutional amparo was lodged in order to protect or reestablish the rights allegedly violated or threatened to be violated, which are enshrined and regulated, in a similar way, under the American Convention on Human Rights, as previously discussed. Moreover, it should be mentioned that a possible decision of amparo could have satisfied some or all the claims contained in the petition which were transcribed supra- and that, in a similar and expanded way, were requested by the alleged victims in its autonomous brief- for example, by ordering the adoption of those measures necessary to prevent that actions of the State’s agents as well as of private individuals from keep hindering the search, reception and dissemination of information urging the law enforcement personnel to take specific steps to avoid the repetition of events such as these; or by guaranteeing the identified petitioners the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression; specially , the exercise of their profession; or by ordering, as an example of an action for amparo against judgments or against the omission of actions, an impartial and thorough investigation in order to prosecute and punish all the responsible for the facts mentioned in the complaint.