19 television networks provide scant coverage of the demonstrations in favor of Chávez” and, once former President Chávez had been reinstated, “the television networks began to transmit films, comic strips, soap operas and sports. The programs transmitted by the television networks at the time did not reflect the events that were taking place in the street, and appeared to be trying to deny that reality.”63 57. The report cited above also indicated that: Additionally, among the few activities that he carried out as Head of State during his brief government, [Pedro Carmona Estanga], the former President of Fedecámaras, held a meeting with the owners of the main media. Versions in the foreign press, cited by the Committee to Protect Journalists, indicate that the owners and executives of the country’s television networks and media met with Carmona on the Saturday morning. Subsequently, José Gregorio Vásquez, who had been appointed deputy minister of the Secretariat, in a public letter, confirmed that the owners of the media had been invited to a meeting with President Carmona, which was attended by the editor of the newspaper El Universal, Andrés Mata, the director general of Globovisión, Alberto Federico Ravell, the owners of Venevisión, Gustavo and Ricardo Cisneros, the editor of the newspaper El Nacional, Miguel Henrique Otero, the director of Radio Caracas Televisión, Marcel Granier, the president of the Bloque de Armas, Andrés de Armas, and also Orlando Urdaneta, of Globovisión, and Patricia Poleo, of El Nuevo País. According to Vásquez, during the meeting a discussion was held on the errors that the new government had committed and the search for solutions, and the media representatives had agreed to cooperate with the communications policy of the de facto government. This account of the meeting has not been denied, and serves to assert that, although there are no indications that the media were involved in the coup d’état, as President Chávez has insistently indicated, the almost unanimous reaction of the press, radio and television had some common features: zero questioning of the new government and the way in which it took power, omission of information questioning the version that Chávez had resigned, which implied censorship, and a large dose of partiality reflected in a media discourse on April 12, on the radio and television and on April 13 in the newspapers, directed at giving legitimacy to the actions signifying that President Chávez had been deposed. This combination of factors infringed the people’s right to receive information.”64 c) Tension between the State and the media 58. To illustrate the situation that existed when the facts occurred, the Court finds it necessary to refer to the case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, because the factual presumptions analyzed in that case allow the context of this case to be understood. Thus, those facts referred to acts and omissions of public officials and private individuals between 2001 and 2004 that constituted restrictions to the task of seeking, receiving and imparting information of 20 individuals who had been employed by RCTV as journalists and social communication employees. In that case, the Court indicated that: The speeches and declarations mentioned, of an essentially political nature, refer to the private social communication media in Venezuela, in general, and to RCTV, its owners and directors, particularly, even though they do not indicate any specific journalists. The evidence provided allows for verification that those statements [by State officials] include the expressions that have been emphasized by the Commission and the representatives in their arguments. Thus, the social communication company RCTV, and in some cases its owners and directors, are referred to as “fascists,” who “are committed” to destabilizing action against the government of Venezuela, against its people, against its laws, against the Republic.” Additionally, that company or its owners are identified, expressly or implicitly, as participants in the coup d’etat of 2002; RCTV is included as one of the four private media companies referred to as “the four horsemen of the Apocalypse;” and references are made to RCTV as “an enemy of the people of Venezuela” and of responding to a “terrorist plan.” Similarly, the veracity of the information transmitted by RCTV is questioned, and in some declarations reference is made to the concession to operate the media and to the possibility of canceling it.65 Cf. Human Rights Center, Universidad Católica Andrés Bello “Entre el estruendo y el silencio. La crisis de abril y el derecho a la libertad de expresión e información,” 2002 Available at: http://w2.ucab.edu.ve/tl_files/ CDH/recursos/entreelestruendoyelsilencio.pdf 63 Cf. Human Rights Center, Universidad Católica Andrés Bello “Entre el estruendo y el silencio. La crisis de abril y el derecho a la libertad de expresión e información,” 2002. 64 65 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, para. 127.