4 b. [a]dopt the measures necessary to ensure to the persons working for the “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” newspapers the full exercise of their right to freedom of expression[; and] c. [c]onduct a thorough investigation of the events that transpired at the offices of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” newspapers so that the competent bodies might identify and prosecute the perpetrators and instigators of those events, and sentence them to the punishments that the law prescribes. 4. The June 29, 2004 note from the Secretariat of the Court where, acting on instructions from the Court en banc, it asked the State to submit, by July 2, 2004 at the latest, its comments on the Commission’s request for provisional measures and any information it might have regarding the situation of “extreme gravity and urgency” and the possibility that “irreparable harm” might be done to persons on the premises of or working at the main offices of the “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” newspapers. 5. The State’s failure to respond to the Secretariat’s June 29, 2004 note. CONSIDERING: 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. That article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that, “[i]n cases extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional matters as it deems pertinent matters it has under consideration and, with respect to a case not yet submitted it, it may act at the request of the Commission.” of to in to 3. That article 25(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure provides that “[a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.” 4. That article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That in general, under domestic legal systems (internal procedural law), the purpose of provisional measure is to protect the rights of the parties in dispute, ensuring that enforcement of the judgment on the merits is not prejudiced by their actions pendente lite. 6. That under the International Law of Human Rights, urgent provisional measures serve a further purpose, which is to protect fundamental human rights, thereby avoiding irreparable harm to persons. 7. That the information presented by the Commission in this case reveals prima facie a threat to the life and person of Sergio Dahbar, Ramón José Medina, Enrique Otero, Rafael Lastra, Ibéyise Pacheco, Patricia Poleo, Marianela Salazar, Henry