34 . 120. The International Court of Justice has understood that the statements of high state officials can be considered not only as an admission of the behavior of the State itself,89 but also generate obligations for the latter. 90 Even more so, said statements can be used as evidence of an act that is attributable to the State those officials represent. 91 When making these determinations it is important to take into consideration the circumstances and the context in which those statements were made. 92 121. It is clear that the facts of the present case occurred in contexts and a period of very high political and social polarization and conflict. There has been agreement in this sense among the parties and some witnesses that have referred to certain relevant events that occurred during the period between 2002 and 2004, many of which have been of public knowledge. 122. In its annual reports and reports on the human rights situation in Venezuela, issued between 2003 and 2006, the Commission verified the existence of a climate of aggression and threat against the freedom of expression and, especially, against the personal integrity of journalists, cameramen, photographers, and other workers of social communication firms. Upon identifying the areas of special attention in this matter, the Commission observed the existence of “threats, attacks, and acts of harassment, against social communicators, especially those that work on the street, as well as lack of investigation regarding those threats and attacks.” It also referred to the lack of investigation of those acts and it pointed out that on several opportunities it asked the State to adopt precautionary measures in order to protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of the journalists, cameramen, and photographers attacked. Among the recommendations made by the Commission in its reports, it pointed out “maintaining from the highest instances of Government the public condemnation of the attacks against social communicators, in order to prevent actions that promote” the deprivation of life, attacks, threats, and intimidations upon them. The Commission also received information on attacks to both the media and communicators outside the context of the political and social conflict, an increase in the criminal proceedings against social communicators and acts that could be considered forms of indirect restriction in the exercise of the freedom of expression. The Commission stated its concern because these facts could hinder the free exercise of journalism, both of the media perceived as the opposition, as well as of the official media.93 Huamaní and García Santa Cruz V. Peru, supra note 87, para. 79. See also, Case of La Cantuta V. Peru, supra note 84, para. 156. 89 Cf. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 390, para. 64. 90 Cf. ICJ, Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253, paras. 43, 46; and CIJ, Nuclear Tests Case, (New Zealand v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 457, paras. 46, 49 Nuclear Tests. 91 Cf. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 390, para. 71. 92 Cf. PCIJ, Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Judgment of 5 April 1933, Ser. A/B53, page 69. See also, ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 390, para. 65. 93 Cf. IACHR. Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.118doc. 4 rev. 2, December 29, 2003, paragraph 367; Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights 2005, Chapter IV, “Development of Human Rights in the Region”. OAS/Ser.L/V/II.124, Doc. 7, February 27, 2006,; Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights 2006, Chapter IV, “Development of Human Rights in the Region” OAS/Ser.L/V/II.127, Doc. 4 rev. 1, March 3, 2007