8 . consequences object of the main debate of the case presented to the Tribunal. 23 Similarly, it required that the State maintain the provisional measures ordered. On June 19, 2007 Mr. Eduardo Sapene and another 180 people, assisted by the representatives, added themselves to the request of May 26, 2007. On July 3, 2007 the Court ratified in all its terms this Order of the President, it dismissed the requests of expansion and it ordered the State to maintain the provisional measures determined in the Orders of November 27, 2002, November 21, 2003, September 8, 2004, and September 12, 2005.24 29. Upon issuing this Judgment, the provisional measures ordered are in force; thus on this date the State has the obligation to: […A]dopt, without delay, all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernia, and Pedro Nikken, as well as the freedom of expression of the these last three. […A]dopt, without delay, all necessary measures to protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of all journalists, directors, and employees of the social communications firm Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), as well as of the people located in the installations of that social communications firm or linked to the journalistic operation of that media (RCTV). […A]dopt, without delay, such measures as may be necessary to protect the perimeter of the head offices of the social communications firm Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV). […I]nvestigate the facts that gave rise to these provisional measures and their expansion, in order to identify those responsible and impose upon them the corresponding punishments. […A]llow the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and […], in general, […] maintain [them] informed of the progress of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS. A) FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Of the prejudice in the role performed by some of the judges members of the Court” 30. In the first preliminary objection the State requested that the Judges Cecilia Medina Quiroga and Diego García-Sayán be “separated from hearing” the present case. As grounds for its request, the State referred, inter alia, to the existing relationship between those Judges and a non-governmental organization. The State indicated that one of the attorneys that legally represents the alleged victims in this case is the president of that organization and a member of its board of directors. In the State’s opinion, Judges Medina and GarcíaSayán had issued, along with the rest of the members of that organization, prior opinions of a negative nature and that were discrediting against the State, which “compromises their fairness when proceeding to issue a judgment in the present case.” 31. This position was considered in an Agreement of the then President of the Court of October 12, 2007 (supra para. 8), in which it decided, inter alia, and “in light of the elements of judgment it had at that time, […] to not accept […] the exclusion of Judges Cecilia Medina Quiroga and Diego García-Sayán from hearing the Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, and exercise the power to submit the matter to the Full Court, in the terms of Article 19(2) of the Statutes of the Tribunal.” 23 Cf. Order issued by the then President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on July 14, 2007. 24 Cf. Order issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on July 3, 2007.