2 . No. 119/06, in the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, which includes certain recommendations to the State.2 On April 8, 2007 the Commission decided, in the terms of Article 51(1) of the Convention and 44 of its Rules of Procedure, to submit the present case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission appointed Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, member of the Commission, and Messrs. Santiago A. Chacón, Executive Secretary, and Ignacio J. Álvarez, then Special Rapporteur for the Freedom of Expression, as delegates and Mrs. Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, current Joint Executive Secretary, Débora Benchoam, Lilly Ching Soto, and Silvia Serrano as legal advisors. Mr. Ariel E. Dulitzky and Mrs. Alejandra Gonza, who are no longer employees of the Commission, as legal advisors. 2. The facts presented by the Commission refer to acts and omissions committed by public officials and individuals, which constituted restrictions to the task of seeking, receiving, and imparting information of 20 people, all of them journalists or social communication workers that are or have been linked to RCTV. Specifically, the Commission argues that these people were subject to several threats, acts of harassment, and verbal and physical abuse, including injuries caused by gunshots, and that there were attempts against the installations of the RCTV television station, between the years 2001 and 2004. Additionally, the Commission stated a lack of diligence in the investigation of those incidents and omission of preventive actions by the State. 3. The Commission requested the Court that it declare the State responsible for the violation of the rights acknowledged in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations to respect and guarantee human rights established in Article 1(1) of that treaty, in detriment of Luisiana Ríos Paiva, Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado, Eduardo Guillermo Sapene Granier, Javier García Flores, Isnardo José Bravo, David José Pérez Hansen, Wilmer Marcano, Winston Francisco Gutiérrez Bastardo, Isabel Cristina Mavarez Marin, Erika Paz, Samuel Sotomayor, Anahís del Carmen Cruz Finol, Herbigio Antonio Henríquez Guevara, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Cecilia Castellanos Amarista, Argenis Uribe, Pedro Antonio Nikken García, Noé Pernía, and Carlos Colmenares, alleged victims in this case. As a consequence of the aforementioned, the Commission requested that the Court order certain reparation measures to the State and that the costs and expenses be reimbursed. 4. On July 19, 2007, the representatives of 16 of the 20 alleged victims, Messrs Carlos Ayala Corao, Pedro Nikken, Oswaldo Quintana Cardona, and Moirah Sánchez Sanz, (hereinafter “the representatives”),3 presented the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence In the Report on merits the Commission concluded that Venezuela “is responsible for the violation of the rights to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13), the right to a fair trial (Article 8), to judicial protection (Article 25), and to humane treatment (Article 5), in relation with the obligations of respect and guarantee enshrined in Article 1(1), all of the American Convention, in the terms and with regard to the victims detailed throughout the […] report on merits.” Additionally, the Commission made certain recommendations to the State (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 1). 2 According to the powers-of-attorney presented, these people have exercised the representation of 16 of the 20 alleged victims. The Commission indicated that the “defense of the interests” of the alleged victims Luis Augusto Contreras, Samuel Sotomayor, Armando Amaya, and Argenis Uribe, who had not appointed a representative for the processing of the case before the Court at the time of the filing of the application, would be “provisionally assumed” by the Commission. Subsequently, Mr. Armando Amaya granted a power-of-attorney to the representatives. However, even though he appears as an alleged victim in the application, the Commission did not explicitly assume the defense of Mr. Wilmer Marcano and the representatives did not mention him within the people they represent nor did they argue that he was an alleged victim in the present case. Therefore, the Court has understood that the Commission assumed the defense of Mr. Marcano in this process, instituted until its end in those terms, “as guarantor of the public interest under the American Convention, in order to avoid [his] defenselessness” (Article 33(3) of the Rules of Procedure). Cf. copies of the Powers-of-Attorney granted in favor of Carlos Ayala Corao, Pedro Nikken, Oswaldo Quintana Cardona, and Moirah Sanchez Sanz (appendix 79 to the application). See also appendixes to the brief of the Inter-American Commission of June 27, 2007 (powers-of3