89 . those official letters were formally well founded on the Partial Regulations on Television Broadcasts, Decree 2,625 and on the alleged non-compliance by RCTV of the legal regulations in force in Venezuela regarding violent content during classified time frames for the broadcasting of programs, the objective of those letters was to pressure the directors regarding the content of the information imparted by this station and the alleged victims. The State should have allowed RCTV to impart, pursuant with the law, the programs selected by those who manage the station and the information its journalists were preparing for the informative television programs and abstain from exercising pressures regarding the content of the news and guarantee their ample circulation. 354. The State indicated that upon sending the official letters between January and the beginning of April 2002, CONATEL assumed “its undeniable duty to protect its children and its youth from the devastating psychological effects that could result from tolerating images of violence in time frames where the majority of the television audience are underage.” It argued that the mentioned official letters do not, in any way, violate the freedom of expression and information since: a) it does not interfere with the content of the media firm’s editorial line, being able the latter to discuss and inform whatever it considers appropriate; instead they simply request that, while doing so, and while within the children’s time frame it abstain from showing images of violence or at least it diffuse the image during the harshest scenes that could psychologically damage the children that watch it; b) they were sent in exercise of a legitimate competence of the State enshrined in a preexisting legislation; c) they do not directly apply any sanction against the station, limiting its action to requesting the non-repetition of similar situations, but reserving for itself other actions also established in the law, as is its duty. The State pointed out that this Court cannot indicate if RCTV violated or not Venezuela’s Organic Law on Telecommunications, but instead it shall limit its actions to verifying if the decisions were issued by a competent authority, if it acted pursuant with the law and in attention of the juridical right protected. The State indicated that the official letters questions are limited to compliance of the state’s obligation to protect boys, girls, and teenagers from violent messages, not adequate for their comprehensive development, as further proven by the fact that during that same period CONATEL sent other official letters or exhorts to RCTV that did not refer to informative or opinion based programs, but that obeyed the same purpose. The State mentioned that none of the official letters prohibits the broadcasting of the program, instead they suggest that it be broadcasted in a timeframe adequate for a mature audience. 341 355. The Court observes that the Commission forwarded as evidence, in the appendixes to the application, 26 official letters sent by CONATEL to RCTV regarding the journalistic program “La Entrevista en el Observador”.342 The Commission and the representatives only argued that three of the official letters, issued on January 28, 2002, constituted a violation of Article 13(1) and 13(3) of the Convention, namely, official letters number 578, 580, and 581 issued in relation to programs broadcasted on the 7, 9, and 10 th days of that same month and year titled: “Los Periodistas Dicen Ya Basta”; “¿El Gobierno Propicia la Violencia con los Medios?”; and “Círculos Bolivarianos, ¿Provocan Conflicto?”. 343 341 Specifically, it presented an official letter of January 28, 2002 with regard to the program “Lo que callan mujeres” broadcasted on January 7, 2002, an official letter of February 15, 2002 with regard to the program “La Jungla” transmitted on January 10, 2002, an official letter of February 15, 2002 with regard to the program “Rescate en el barrio chino” issued on January 11, 2002, an official letter of February 15, 2002 with regard to the programs “El Rescate” and “La Última Misión” of January 13, 2002, an official letter of February 15, 2002 with regard to the programs “Duro de Matar III”, “Juegos Sexuales”, and “Amenazas Submarina II” transmitted on January 13, 2002, and an official letter of March 12, 2002 with regard to the recreational program “Lo que Callan las Mujeres” broadcasted on February 19, 2002. Cf. (dossier of evidence, volume XXI, folios 6544-6559). 342 See Appendix 56 to the application (dossier of evidence, volume VI, folios 1845 through 1900). The Commission did not specify the numbers and dates of the official letters and only stated that in January and February 2002 CONATEL sent three official letters to the president of RCTV. From the documents forwarded by the Commission, the Court observes that it presented four official letters of January 28, 2002 numbered 578, 579, 580, 581 and an official letter of February 14, 2002 numbered 1105. Likewise, the 343