61 . range soldier is observed and in it he refers to an incident occurred between the journalist Cruz and an army soldier and he asks the journalist to leave. 236 232. This alleged fact was denounced on February 3, 2003 before the 2 Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office for alleged verbal attacks. 237 According to the representatives, the Public Prosecutors’ Office limited itself to receiving the victim’s statement. 238 In this case, the Court observes a lack of diligence in the actions of that body, since the State has not informed of any diligence carried out since the filing of the complaint. 233. However, the Court considers that the evidence provided is not enough to prove that a verbal attack was produced against the journalist nor that she was prevented access to the official sources of information (infra paras. 350 and 351). * * * 234. The Commission argued that on August 14, 2003 “a numerous group of “supporters of the ruling party” showed up at the RCTV headquarters and they participated in violent protests and they wrote insults on the walls of the façade.” The representatives argued that officers of the Metropolitan Police and the National Guard did nothing to avoid the attack. The State, on its part, argued in reference to this and other facts, that it has always proven it as a policy directed to protecting the employees of the social communication media. 235. The evidence presented consists in the complaint itself, the dossier of the process before the Commission and the records of a judicial inspection carried out at the headquarters of RCTV on August 15, 2003.239 The records of the judicial inspection include descriptions of different paintings on the façade and other parts of the building, as well as photographs of the concentration of protestors taken by the station’s security cameras. 236. The facts were denounced on August 15, 2003 by the proxies of RCTV before the 2° Fiscal of the Public Prosecutors’ Office, 240 which, according to the representatives, has not perform any action.241 Since there is no evidence that the Public Prosecutors’ Office performed any diligence since that judicial inspection, a lack of diligence in the actions of that body is observed. 237. The Court considers that based on the evidence available in the case file it is possible to consider proven that individuals held protests outside the installations of RCTV. During these unidentified individuals made paintings with different inscriptions. * * 236 * Cf. video labeled “Anahís Cruz” appendix 38 to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence). 237 According to the representatives it was not possible to obtain a copy of the complaint despite the fact that it was requested to the Public Prosecutors’ Office. 238 Cf. final arguments of the representatives (dossier of merits, volume VIII, folio 2497). 239 Cf. judicial inspection dated August 15, 2003 carried out by the Sixth First Instance Civil, Mercantile, and Traffic Court of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folios 1103-1132). 240 Cf. complaint filed on August 15, 2003 before the Public Prosecutors’ Office (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folios 1095-1100). 241 Cf. final arguments of the representatives (dossier of merits, volume VIII, folio 2498).