33 . considered that “even though the strong content of the pronouncements cannot be considered the direct cause of subsequent acts in detriment of the employees of RCTV, […] the continuity of some of the content of the statements from the highest spheres of the State, which mentions the media firm where the victims works, help create an environment with a strong political division and polarization in both society and the media, as well a strong intolerance and fanaticism that may result in acts of violence against the people identified as employees of that media firm and in the will to hinder their journalistic task.” The Commission also stated that even though they cannot be considered “in conventional terms as incitements to violence,” those pronouncements “can be interpreted as such by eager partisans of one side or another within a context of extreme political polarization such as the Venezuelan one”, and thus giving them a periodic continuity is not compatible with the duty to prevent the acts that may affect the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.83 117. The Court has reiterated that in order to establish that a there has been a violation to the rights enshrined in the Convention it is not necessary to determine, as happens in domestic criminal law, the guilt of the authors or their intention nor is it necessary to individually identify the agents to which the violating acts are attributed. 84 It is enough that the State has failed to comply with an obligation that corresponds to it. 118. Additionally, the attribution of international responsibility to a State for acts of state agents or individuals must be determined taking into consideration the specific circumstances of each case,85 as well as the correlative special duties applicable to the same. Even though this power is carried out based on International Law, this legal system cannot define in an exhaustive manner all the hypothesis or situations in which each of the possible actions or omissions of state agents or individuals, or the different forms and modalities that can be assumed by the facts in situations that violate human rights, can be attributed to the State.86 119. With regard to the terms in which the acts or omissions of high officials may be attributable to the State, it can be said, in general terms, that any damage to the human rights acknowledged in the Convention that may be attributed, pursuant with the rules of International Law, to the action or omission of any public authority, constitutes a fact attributable to the State, since it is a principle of International Law that the state respond for the acts and omissions of its agents carried out under the protection of their official nature, even if they act beyond the limits of their competence. 87 That is, international responsibility is generated immediately with the international illegal act attributed to any of its powers or bodies, regardless of their hierarchy.88 83 IACHR. Report on merits No. 119/06 of October 26, 2006, paras. 277-281 (dossier of evidence, volume I, folios 67-68). 84 Cf. Case of Velasquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 38, para. 173; Case of La Cantuta V. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 156; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 38, para. 110. 85 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 38, para. 113; Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 78; and and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 80, para. 123. 86 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 38, para. 113; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 80, para. 116. 87 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 38, para. 173; Case of the “White Van” (Case of Paniagua Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 45, para. 91; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haiti, supra note 49, para. 43; and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz V. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79. 88 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court V. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 109; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haiti, supra note 49, para. 43; and Case of Cantoral