13 . 46. In the application before the Court, the Commission defined the factual framework of the present case under the title “Factual Grounds”. In that section, the Commission included a sub-section in which it described, in eight paragraphs and in general terms, a political situation an a context of “threats to social communicators” in which the facts of the case occurred. Based on its reports on the human rights situation in Venezuela in 2003, as well as in its Annual Report of 2004, the Commission stated that at the time in which the facts object of the present case occurred, Venezuela “was in a period of institutional and political conflict that caused an extreme polarization of society.” 47. Additionally, the Commission stated that on April 9, 2002 a strike summoned by the Workers’ Confederation of Venezuela and Fedecámaras started and on April 11th of the same year the opposition organized a march, in which it demanded the resignation of the President of the Republic. The Commission stated that it was in this context that facts of violence that culminated in a high number of deaths and injuries, the attack on the constitutional government through a coup d’etat, and the subsequent return to constitutional order occurred. The prevailing situation in Venezuela generated a climate of attacks and continuous threats against journalists, cameramen, photographers, and other employees of the social communication media. 48. In what refers to this case, the Commission presented approximately 40 facts that occurred between December 2001 and June 2004, consisting in statements of public officials and in attacks, threats, and harassments committed in detriment of the alleged victims. It made reference to fifteen investigations and proceedings in the criminal jurisdiction in relation to these facts. The aforementioned is the grounds for its legal arguments. * * * 49. The representatives argued that the facts that make up the present case “have been reviewed, argued, and proven” in the application, that they were known of by the parties within the framework of the petition, of the precautionary measures, and of the provisional measures, and they mentioned a series of facts classified as “supervening”. These would be directly related with the facts included in the application, which occurred before and after it was filed, that “must be assessed by the Court […] either as part of the ‘context’ in which the facts occurred […] or as facts that aggravated the [alleged] violations, [which] are also facts attributable to the State and that result in its international responsibility.” Those facts “have continued and continue occurring, and the attacks and threats have [even been] intensified[, therefore] they are continued facts […] that can be included within the definition offered by the Court for ‘supervening’ facts.” They referred to the following “three types of facts:” those that constitute “the object itself of the litigation” by virtue of having being presented in the application; those that explain, clarify, or reject them; and the supervening ones, which occur after the application has been presented. In their final written arguments, they mentioned that it is “evident that the aggressions keep on occurring […] nowadays.” 50. At the same time, the representatives referred to a series of facts, situations, and assessments they want to include as part of the context of the factual framework of the present case and that they consider relevant in proving a context of restrictions and violations to the freedom of expression, and “a pattern of behavior or policies of the State with regard to the exercise of the freedom of expression.” Those facts consist in a series of regulations included in domestic legislation and judicial decisions, inter alia;32 punitive 32 They referred to the manner in which the Political Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and several subsequent reforms were approved; the scope of judgment No. 1.013 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 12, 2001; judgment No. 1.942 issued by the Constitutional