7 as there was the presumption that they were new facts.” The Prosecutor assigned to the case pointed out that Liliana Ortega refused to attend because she deemed it unnecessary and she also stated that she could not “move around in downtown Caracas for any reason because her life was in danger.” f) “On December 16, 2002 the Twenty-Fourth national-level Prosecutor sent an official letter to the director of COFAVIC requesting detailed information on the new events reported to the inter-American system. The January 20, 2003 reply was a brief stating that on January 6, 2003 Hilda Páez, the President of COFAVIC, personally sent a 34 page brief, as an annex before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, stamped by the Directorate of the General Secretariat, Records Unit. In that brief, citizen Liliana Ortega expressed her gratitude for the motivation shown by the Prosecutor assigned to the case in requesting information on it.” g) “[...] the proposal [of the Commission] is an expedite, adequate, convenient and necessary alterative [with] joint planning between doctor Liliana Ortega, the people at COFAVIC, the people of the Venezuelan State and the Government to [...] reasonably and fairly comply with the [...] precautionary measures and as a continuation of compliance with the precautionary measures to obviously involve in them, [...] the Provisional Measures ordered by you [the Court].” 17. The documents submitted by the Inter-American Commission at the public hearing held on February 17, 2003, which were five pages with photographs of posters and graffiti made by the “supporters of the government” at various points of the city of Caracas, Venezuela. 18. The documents submitted by the State at the public hearing held on February 17, 2003 which are “documents pertaining to actions carried out by the prosecutors appointed to investigate the case as well as actions by the Venezuelan Ministry of the Interior and Justice, pertaining to the Liliana Ortega et al. case.” 19. Resolutions 1818/01 and 1842/02 of the Organization of American States, in which it decided: General Assembly of the 1. To reiterate its support for the work carried out, at both the national and regional levels, by human rights defenders; and to recognize their valuable contribution to the protection, promotion, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Americas. 2. To deplore acts that directly or indirectly prevent or hamper the work of human rights defenders in the Americas. 3. To urge member states to step up their efforts to adopt the necessary measures, in keeping with their domestic law and with internationally accepted principles and standards, to guarantee the life, personal safety, and freedom of expression of human rights defenders. […] CONSIDERING: 1. The State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977 and, pursuant to article 62 of that Convention, it accepted contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981.