7 18. That the representatives indicated that Sergio Dahbar, Rafael Lastra and Ibéyise Pacheco, “even though they still are beneficiaries under the provisional measures ordered, do not render any of their services to the El Nacional newspaper.” The latest information submitted by the representatives in connection with beneficiary Ibéyise Pacheco, relates to a brief dated April 9, 2007, wherein it is pointed out that this journalist would have been subjected to “accusations […] and aggressions by high-ranking Government officials” that “amount to indirect and direct mechanisms threatening her right to life and to personal integrity, for the pattern in such matters has been that such legal and/or verbal aggressions by highranking Government officials usually come along with physical aggressions.” The accusations to which the representative made reference had taken place during the year 2002; 19. That in all the briefs filed by the representatives, when the situation of peril for the life, the personal integrity and the freedom of expression of the beneficiaries is outlined, allusion is made to a context of harassment against journalistic action criticizing or reporting on misdeeds in Governmental conduct. 20. That when requested to produce a listing of all the beneficiaries under the provisional measures, along with the explanations of why such persons should continue to be protected (supra Having Seen Clause 5), the representative submitted two listings, one including 792 persons and another one with 16 persons – coinciding with the “El Nacional” staff membership – with no clear explanation as to why all of such 808 persons must be given protection. Furthermore in July, 2008 it was requested to extend the provisional measure to the “El Nacional” facilities at its Los Cortijos premises, alleging that the provisional measure “was ordered in favor of the company regardless of location.” 21. That the State pointed out that “the situation which prompted implementing the measures is no longer the same” and that the measures adopted “have been effective, for thereby repetition of the events leading to their implementation have been prevented.” On September 24, 2007 the State added that “the facts highlighted during the year 2004, stemming from the manifest intolerance prevailing in those days, have ceased.” 22. That the Commission stated that events such as those having occurred on March 15 and on August 22, 2007 and on July 25, 2008 (supra Considering Clauses 17), “indicate that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists” and that “the provisional measures continue to be necessary.” Likewise, regarding the verbal aggressions against “El Nacional” in 2004 and 2005, the Commission pointed out that “certain speeches by certain high-ranking officials of the State against specific mass media in polarized contexts could be construed as enticement to aggression […]. Name-calling such as that hereinbefore described could have the purpose of scaring the mass communicator and the journalists active therein, thus generating self-censorship or fear to be identified as media workers on account of possible reprisals.” 23. That this Court has established that the provisional measures are not only precautionary but also protective.2 The precautionary nature of the provisional 2 Cf. Matter of the newspaper “La Nación.” Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the