43 . protest carried out in Venezuela during the period in which the facts object of the present case occurred. If the State indicates it has adopted effective measures of prevention and protection, it corresponded to it to prove the cases and situations in which the alleged victims had acted beyond what state authorities could reasonably prevent and do or in which they had disobeyed its instructions. The State’s argument is inconsistent when it states, on one hand, that the alleged victims participated in “grave alterations to public order” and, on the other, that it adopted effective measures of protection in their favor. The State did not prove, with regard to the facts mentioned below, that the alleged victims participated in acts of alteration of the public order or did not obey instructions of the security bodies destined to protect them. With regard to the measures of protection ordered by domestic judges, the mere order to adopt those measures does not prove the State has effectively protected the beneficiaries of the order in relation to the facts analyzed. 155. Therefore, the Court will take into consideration that state authorities had ordered protection measures, but it will not issue a ruling on the appropriateness and effectiveness of those measures or about the evidence presented in that sense. B.i Facts 156. The Commission argued that on December 17, 2001 Mrs. Luisiana Ríos was attacked by individuals “supporters of the ruling party” at an event at the National Cemetery, reason for which she had to leave that location guarded by the Military Police. 117 The State referred to the actions carried out by the Public Prosecutors’ Office regarding this fact and informed that on January 24, 2007 the dismissal of the case was agreed on. 157. The Court verified that the statements offered by Mrs. Ríos coincide with the version of the facts provided by the Commission.118 158. With regard to the investigations in reference to this fact, on January 31, 2002 Mr. Eduardo Sapene Granier filed a complaint before the Office of Common Crimes.119 On February 18, 2002 the 2° and 74° Public Prosecutors’ Office started the corresponding investigations.120 The 50° Public Prosecutors’ Office at a National Level with Full Jurisdiction joined this case with others in which the journalist Luisiana Ríos was allegedly a victim. Interviews were performed.121 On January 18, 2006, four years after the first complaint was filed, the Public Prosecutors’ Office requested the dismissal of the case regarding this fact, which was ordered on February 21, 2006 by the Fiftieth Court of Control Duties of the 117 The Commission argued that “[o]n December 17, 2001 supporters of the ruling party attacked the journalist Luisiana Ríos while she was covering a news story related with the act in honor of Simón Bolívar, the Liberator, to be held by the President Hugo Chávez at the National Pantheon. On that opportunity, a woman tried to hit the reporter while she was transmitting the news story and, in that aggressive context, another individual started chasing her with a stick in his hand. Due to the attacks against the reporter, she had to leave the place with the custody of the Military Police.” 118 Cf. statement offered before a notary public (affidavit) by Luisiana Rios Paiva on June 25, 2007 (dossier of evidence, volume XVIII, folios 5598-5602) and statement of Luisiana Ríos (dossier of evidence, volume VIII, appendix 31 to the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, folios 3141-3143). 119 Cf. Complaint filed before the Superior Prosecutors’ Office of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas on January 31, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume V, folios 1475-1480). 120 Cf. Request for discontinuance and dismissal by the 50° National Public Prosecutors’ Office with Full Jurisdiction of January 18, 2006 (dossier of evidence, volume XXVII, folios 9450-9468). 121 Cf., inter alia, transcript of the interview with Lusiana Ríos before the 2 and 74 Public Prosecutors’ Offices of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, dated March 11, 2002 (dossier of evidence, volume XXV, folios 9226-9230).