42 . implies an omission of the state authorities to their duty to prevent the facts, since it could have been interpreted by individuals and groups of individuals in such a way that they result in acts of violence against the alleged victims, as well as hindrances to their journalistic task. 149. The Court considers that in the situation of actual vulnerability in which the alleged victims found themselves when carrying out their journalistic task, known by state authorities, some content of the mentioned pronouncements is not compatible with the state’s obligation to guarantee the rights of those people to personal integrity and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information, since they could have resulted intimidating for those linked with that communication firm and constitute offenses to the duty to prevent violating situations or situations of risk for the rights of people. B) Facts violating the personal integrity of the alleged victims and their freedom to seek, receive, and impart information 150. Several facts depicted by the Commission and the representatives, which allege that the right to physical integrity of some of the alleged victims, occurred in the context of public protests or marches of social groups. 151. The State indicated that in the cases where responsibility has been attributed to its agents for physical attacks against journalists, no evidence was provided proving that there was a lack of due diligence by the State in trying to prevent the attacks. It indicated, in general terms, that if the alleged victims participated in alterations to the public order and suffered because of its negligence and carelessness, one cannot expect the State to respond for the damages caused, when it has adopted measures to protect them and investigate the facts. The alleged victims have ignored these measures of protection and shown lack of due diligence when starting an activity that is risky due to its own nature. 152. The State argued that “there are innumerable orders and measures of protection issued by the domestic Venezuelan bodies” to try to avoid any type of attack against the social communication media and the people that work at them, as well as of their physical headquarters and offices. It indicated that, this protection has been acknowledged on several occasions by representatives of RCTV and quoted in this sense several statements of alleged victims or employees of that firm. It also indicated that the State, through its security forces, “has offered the diligent measures to protect the alleged victims, not only in the facts they allege and do not prove […] but also in each official or opposing protest, allowing journalists to be included in police cordons so they can carry out their work without putting themselves at risk within any situation of alteration to public order.” It indicated that it has taken “measures of custody, protection, special treatment, investigation, escort, and, in short, collaboration of the police and security forces, with Venezuelan journalists, specifically the alleged and so-called victims.” 153. The representatives denied that the attacks suffered were a consequence of the behavior of the alleged victims. They occurred during the exercise of their journalistic task on the street. They also denied that they were involved in alterations of the public order. They were always “seeking information” to be broadcasted, in the terms of Article 13 of the Convention. Even though the State indicates it has issued protection measures, it is evident they have an exclusively formal nature and have never produced an actual useful or protective effect. Similarly, the State has not complied with its obligation to investigate the attacks denounced. 154. It is appropriate to clarify that the Court shall not determine or evaluate if the State adopted measures to guarantee the public order and safety of the people before each