6 2007, the Director of Legal Advisory Services of the Metropolitan Police reported that the legal mandate issued by the Court to safeguard the premises of the television station had been complied with meticulously. In its most recent brief of November 14, 2007, the State reported that, on February 6, 2007, the Deputy Chief of Police of the Metropolitan Police met with the Globovisión legal adviser at the Globovisión offices and made a series of recommendations to the television station. In this regard, it indicated that “if the representative of the alleged victims (sic) is truly concerned about the effective protection of the safety of the television station and its employees, she should have adopted the recommendations of the security agency immediately […; however,] this was not done, given that there is no interest in improving the service and the security; but rather a clear intention of using the system’s mechanisms and agencies for political ends.” 11. That it should be stressed that meetings have been held and written communications exchanged between the beneficiaries and the State in order to implement the protection measures. Also, the Court appreciates the willingness shown by the State to work together with the beneficiaries in planning and implementing the provisional measures, as well as the posting of State security agents outside the Globovisión offices. Nevertheless, according to the representatives’ allegations, specific acts of violence against the beneficiaries continue. The information that the parties have provided to the Court does not show that the circumstances that gave rise to the adoption of these provisional measures have ceased; hence, it is not appropriate to order that they be rescinded at the present time. Consequently, the State must continue to adopt the appropriate and necessary measures to safeguard and protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of the beneficiaries of these provisional measures, especially when they carry out journalistic activities outside the station’s offices, the circumstances in which, according to the reports received, the most recent alleged physical attacks have occurred. The means and coverage of this protection must respond to the requirements of the circumstances, and be adapted, insofar as possible, to the need to protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of the beneficiaries and to the specific situations that occur. In this regard, the Court urges the beneficiaries and the State to collaborate in order to take into account the recommendations made by the State’s security agency, and the concerns and proposals of the representatives of the beneficiaries, and to design jointly the means by which the measures of protection are provided. * * * Request to expand the content of the provisional measures ordered by the Court 12. That the facts indicated as grounds for the representatives’ request of October 23, 2007 (supra Having seen paragraph 8) include the alleged “verbal attacks [by] public officials and authorities and by Government supporters [against Globovisión journalists, management and employees,] encouraging followers and supporters of official Government policies to carry out physical attacks on [them …], in order to intimidate them and censor them”; the alleged “abusive use of messages on the national radio and television network” by public officials; “the imposing of Government propaganda by the Venezuelan State in violation of article 10 of the Radio and Television Social Responsibility Act”; “the indirect pressure and censure exercised by the Venezuelan State by not offering Globovisión contracts for official publicity,” and “the indirect pressure exercised by the State by failing to grant the concessions and permits requested by Globovisión to expand its coverage.” The representatives allege that these facts constitute a threat to the alleged victims’ freedom of expression.