7 14. Recalling the foregoing, this Court finds, without prejudging the merits of the matter at issue, that the closure of the five radio stations comprising the “Belfort National Circuit” without affording the proposed beneficiaries an opportunity to be heard could result in a situation of extreme gravity due to the loss of the spaces in which the information was being transmitted daily. 15. Concerning urgency, the Court states that the risk or threat are not only imminent, but have already begun to materialize because five stations have ceased their transmissions. 16. Regarding the irreparable nature of the harm, the Tribunal notes that the Commission refers both to the proposed beneficiaries (shareholders, owners, and journalists linked to the stations) for the individual dimension of freedom of expression, as well as to Venezuelan society for the social dimension. Consequently, this matter concerns three distinct categories of persons, namely: i) the society at large; ii) journalists; and iii) owners and shareholders. 17. Concerning the “Venezuelan society” that would allegedly be irreparably harmed by the closure of these stations, the Tribunal recalls that protection for a plurality of persons requires that they at least be “identifiable and determinate,”14 a requirement that is not met in this case. 18. Regarding the proposed beneficiaries who are journalists working at the stations and leaving aside any labor law consequences that the closure would bring about for the journalists (an issue that could be compensable, and therefore, repairable), the Commission did not put forth a prima facie case showing that the journalists may be suffering an irreparable harm. In effect, the Commission did not indicate how the journalists themselves (not the society at large) are affected in such a way that could not be addressed were the agencies of the Inter-American System to resolve the case on the merits. 19. Finally, regarding the owners and shareholders, the Commission did not lay an adequate foundation showing how these persons face an irreparable situation. What’s more, the Commission did not put forth a prima facie case showing that the owners or shareholders, leaving aside their economic interest (which could be analyzed pursuant to Article 21 of the Convention), express themselves or have any relevant participation in defining the content of published editorials. In the case Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, the Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Ivcher, who was a majority shareholder of a television channel, because among other things “he had the capacity of making editorial decisions regarding programming”15, and as a consequence of that editorial posture, “he was the target of different acts of intimidation.”16 In that case, it was demonstrated that Mr. Ivcher expressed himself by way of his medium of communication. In the present matter, conversely, the Commission has not made a prima facie case showing that the harm to the owners and shareholders would impinge their freedom of expression, rather than merely an aspect of their repairable property rights. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 27 of the Rules of Procedure have not been met, for which the 14 Cf. Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2000, Considering clause seven; Matter of Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 7, Considering clause twenty-one; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering clause six. 15 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra note 10, para. 156. 16 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra note 10, para. 158.