11 17. The case that the Commission’s request refers to is not being heard by the Court regarding the merits, and therefore adoption of provisional measures does not involve a decision on the merits of the dispute between the petitioners and the State. By adopting provisional measures, the Court is merely ensuring that it can fully exercise its mandate pursuant to the Convention in cases of extreme gravity and urgency that require measures of protection to avoid irreparable damages to persons. 8 18. On September 6, 2004 the State submitted a brief in which it reported on the measures adopted in the Luisiana Ríos et al. case (supra Having Seen 12). 19. With respect to the measures to protect the lives, safety, and freedom of expression, and to protect the head offices of RCTV, the State mentioned in the aforementioned brief (supra Having Seen 12) that in 2002 “[m]easures of [p]rotection were adopted” regarding the lives and safety “of the journalists and technicians” of said broadcaster, as well as regarding “the facilities where said television channel’s head offices operate, and the microwave retransmission antennae that it uses.” Execution of said measures of protection was entrusted to “security bodies of the State [such as] the Metropolitan Police, the Caracas Police, and the National Guard.” The State also noted that on May 4, 2004 the Sixty-eighth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas was appointed to “process the extension” of the precautionary measures adopted by the Inter-American Commission in favor of the employees, property, and facilities of the RCTV television channel, and that on May 6, 2004 the Thirty-third Trial Court with oversight functions in the Criminal Court Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, “ratifi[ed] the measures adopted before.” 20. With respect to the investigation of the facts that gave rise to adoption of the provisional measures as well as of the urgent measures, in the aforementioned brief (supra Having Seen 12) the State indicated that “the investigation with respect to the instant case is in the investigative phase, in the course of which various useful and necessary steps have been taken to elucidate the facts and to establish liabilities[...,] including, especially, the interviews with the applicants and approximately fifty (50) citizens[,…] conducting planimetric expert assessments[,] forensic medical examination of the witnesses, several technical expert analyses of objects gathered, and photographic records.” 21. The Court has appraised and taken into account the information submitted by the State in its September 6, 2004 report. Said report has also been forwarded to the Commission and to the representatives, who may make such observations as they deem pertinent, and these will be assessed by the Court at the appropriate time. However, the Court has noted that in said report (supra Having Seen 12) the State did not refer to the development of implementation of the aforementioned measures to protect the lives, safety, and freedom of expression, and to protect the head offices of RCTV, and it did not state whether they have been effective to protect said rights, or whether the representatives have been allowed to participate in the implementation of those measures. 8 See Raxcacó et al. Case, supra note 7, Considering eleven; Carlos Nieto et al. Case, supra note 6, Considering ten; and Cases of the dailies “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia”, supra note 2, Considering thirteen.