17 . not mean that any fact, event, or happening that affects the beneficiaries during the validity of those measures may be automatically attributable to the State. It is necessary to assess in each case the evidence offered and the circumstances in which that fact occurred, even under the validity of the provisional protective measures. 60. The factual framework of this case does not include an important part of the alleged facts, assessment of facts, and contextual references presented by the parties and argued as part of the same. Some of the issues argued by the representatives include controversies that are pending resolution before the domestic authorities of Venezuela and could also be considered part of other cases pending resolution both at a domestic or international level. Those situations, assessments, and arguments presented by the parties regarding facts not included in the factual framework, do not correspond to the controversy of the present case. Therefore, the Court will not issue any specific ruling regarding them. They will only be taken into consideration, in what is relevant, as arguments of the parties and as the context of the disputed facts. 61. The State argued that the private media hurls “constant attacks […] frequently, against the immense majority […] of partisans and supporters of the government led by the President of the Republic[, … who have] been frequently described [… with a] series of expressions of a defamatory content, whose sole purpose is to humiliate, offend, and degrade a group of people for supporting a government that has been legally created and elected.” The State mentioned that “this series of insults and defamatory statements tend to create and encourage feelings of rejection and repudiation to the task exercised by certain [private] social communication media in the immense majority of people that support the Venezuelan government who logically and with good reason, question the work carried out by these means of communication within Venezuelan society, which results in stressful situations that on certain opportunities may have as a consequence the generation of unfortunate situations of violence […] from the sector of the population that is attacked, as a consequence and direct responsibility of the actions and attitude assumed by some of the media […], and by the feelings of rejection they generate with their activity.” 62. The Court reiterates that its function is to determine, in exercise of its contentious jurisdiction as an international human rights court, the State’s responsibility under the American Convention for the alleged violations, and not the responsibility of RCTV or other media, or its directors, shareholders, or employees for certain facts or historical events in Venezuela, or its role or performance as a social communication firm. The Court does not make any determination of the rights of RCTV, as a company, corporation, or legal entity. Even if it were true that RCTV or its personnel have committed acts attributed to them by the State, this would not justify the non-compliance of the state’s obligations to respect and guarantee human rights.41 Disagreement and differences in opinions and ideas are circumstantial to the pluralism that must exist in a democratic society. 63. In their final written arguments, the representatives presented a series of arguments regarding “the unacceptable retaliation against the [alleged] victims and the human rights defenders of the present case,” in reference to expressions and statements of state agents regarding the alleged victims and their representatives and some videos published by a state channel. They argued its purpose was to “discourage and therefore frustrate the right [of the alleged victims] to present petitions before the system’s bodies.” In this sense, Article 44 of the Convention guarantees people the right to turn to the Inter-American System; therefore, the effective exercise of that right implies that no other type of retaliation can be exercised against them. The States shall guarantee, in compliance of their Cf. ECHR, Ozgur Gundem v. Turkey, Judgment of March 16, 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-III, para. 45. 41