58 . the Venezuelan authorities and his subsequent statement within the proceedings before the Court. 218. The Court observes that in an affidavit forwarded to these proceedings, Mr. Amaya confirmed the version of the facts offered by the Commission and also stated that in those circumstances there was a confrontation with stones, “Molotov” bombs, gas tear bombs, and the exchange of gunshots; that he noticed he was attacked by “supporters of the ruling party”; and that he did not receive medical attention at the first hospital where he went, reason for which he had to return to the channel’s installations from where he was taken to a clinic.216 In his statement before the 2° and 74° Public Prosecutors’ Offices, Mr. Amaya offered the same version of the facts and mentioned that he had not been able to identify the person who shot him nor could he identify the protestors present there. Likewise, he stated that as of that date he received death threats. 217 On the other hand, in his sworn statement Mr. Pedro Nikken coincided with this version of the facts, he mentioned that the firemen of the Metropolitan Police carried Mr. Amaya and offered first aid to him and he indicated that they never received direct protection from the State. 218 219. In a medical report on the injuries suffered by Mr. Amaya details are offered on a “superficial, uncomplicated injury by firearm on the back of his right thigh.”219 Finally, a newspaper article presented by the Commission confirms that Mr. Amaya was injured in those circumstances and it mentions that “one of the members of the Tomista forces, who had thrown a mat on the floor blocking the door leading to the parking lot took out his 38 revolver and fired several shots against the picket”, where the alleged victim and another person were injured.220 220. In reference to the investigations surrounding this fact, on November 21, 2002 a complaint was filed before the 2° Public Prosecutor of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas.221 According to the representatives, different expert opinions were received.222 Additionally, a transcript of the interview with Mr. Amaya was prepared. 223 The State informed that on February 22, 2006, the prosecutor appointed to the case requested information regarding these facts from the 11-A Brigade.224 Finally, on July 31, 2007 the prosecutors in charge of the case ordered the prosecutorial filing of the actions, 216 Cft. statement offered by Armando Amaya before a notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5663-5665). 217 Cf. Statement of Armando Amaya before the 2° and 74° Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on January 28, 2003. (dossier of evidence, volume XXI, folios 6494-6495). 218 Cf. statement offered by Pedro Antonio Nikken García before a notary public (affidavit) on June 25, 2008 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5593-5596) 219 Cf. medical report regarding Mr. Armando Amaya issued on November 19, 2002 by the Medical Director of Administradora Rescarven C.A. (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folio 1066). 220 Cf. newspaper article with the title “Violencia Política. Desalojo de policías tomistas provocó caos y vandalismo. Un muerto y 35 heridos en disturbios” (dossier of evidence, volume VI, folios 1998-1999) 221 Cf. complaint filed before the 2° Sections of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on November 21, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume IV, appendix 22 to the application, folios 1060-1064). 222 Cf. brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (dossier of merits, volume III, folio 609). 223 Cf. Statement of Armando Amaya before the 2° and 74° Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on January 28, 2003. (dossier of evidence, volume XXI, folios 6494-). 224 Cf. Report n˚DFGR-28.031 of May 9, 2006 (dossier of evidence, Volume X, appendix A.6.6 to the response to the application, folio 3774).