7 . 24. On December 2, 2004 the Court issued an order in which it reiterated that the State had not effectively implemented the different provisional measures ordered by the Court in this matter; it declared the State’s failure to comply with the duty imposed by Article 68(1) of the Convention; it declared the State’s failure to comply with the duty to inform the Tribunal on the implementation of the measures; it decided that, if that situation persisted, it would inform the General Assembly of the Organization of American States of the State’s failure to comply with the decisions of this Tribunal and it reiterated to the State the requirement to adopt, without delay, the measures ordered and allow the petitioners to participate in the planning and implementation of the same. 16 On May 4, 2004 the Court issued an order in similar terms.17 25. On July 9, 2004 the Commission presented a request to expand the measures. On the 27th day of the same month and year the President issued an order expanding them, 18 which the Court ratified on September 8, 2004. 19 26. On September 12, 2005 the Court reiterated its orders to the State.20 27. On January 24, 2007 the Tribunal declared a request filed by the beneficiaries of the provisional measures and their representatives on January 22, 2007 to have the provisional measures ordered expanded inadmissible “because those who file[d] it did not fulfill the requirements of procedural legal standing to do so.” 21 28. On May 26, 2007, after the presentation of the application, eight people, seven of whom are alleged victims identified in the application, 22 filed a request of expansion of the measures. On the following June 4th, 14 people, alleged victims, se added themselves to the mentioned request for the ordering of measures “due to the imminent danger that grave and irreparable damages occur against [their] human rights, specifically against freedom of expression, resulting from the closing of the broadcasts [of RCTV].” On June 14, 2007 the then President dismissed that request because it considered, inter alia, that the adoption of the measures requested could imply an anticipated judgment through interlocutory proceedings with the subsequent establishment of some of the facts and its corresponding 16 Cf. Order issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on December 2, 2003. 17 In this order the Court declared that the State, for having acknowledged its jurisdiction, is compelled to comply with the Tribunal’s decisions, which has the ability, inherent to its powers, to supervise compliance of these decisions; it also declared that the State is compelled to implement the provisional measures ordered by the Court and to present, with the periodicity indicated by the latter, the reports required, and that the power of the Court includes evaluating the reports presented and issuing instructions and orders regarding compliance of its decisions; it reiterated, in application of Article 65 of the Convention, that the State failed to comply with the duty to inform the Court of the implementation of the measures; and it reiterated to the State that it must comply with the content of the order of December 2, 2003. Cf. Order issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on May 4, 2004. 18 Cf. Order issued by the then President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on July 27, 2004. 19 Cf. Order issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on September 8, 2004. 20 Cf. Order issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on September 12, 2005. Cf. Order issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on January 24, 2007. Mrs. Luisiana Ríos and Isabel Mavarez and Messrs Isnardo Bravo, David Pérez Hansen, Antonio Monroy, Javier García Flores, José Pernalete, and Eduardo Sapene. Mr. José Pernalete is not an alleged victim in the application. In this request they also stated that it is presented by “the other journalists and directors of [RCTV] […,] acting on [their own] behalf and proceeding also on behalf and in representation of the other people, journalists, director, and other employees that work at RCTV”. 21 22