4 that the judgment on merits will not be affected by their actions pendente lite”, and j) the provisional measures that “they request from [the] Court, [would] also comply, in an irreplaceable manner, a protective purpose. In this context, the Court’s provisional measures [would be] the only and last legal measure offered to [them] by the Convention to protect [their] human rights before the [alleged] imminence of their violation.” In this brief the representatives asked the Court to order the following provisional measures to the State: a) b) c) d) e) that, as a measure of non-innovation, it abstain from all decisions or acts that result in preventing RCTV from continuing with its normal operation […] until the processing of the case before the Court has concluded […]; that, if measures such as the closing of the transmissions of RCTV and the seizure of its properties by the State have been executed, it order the State to reestablish the situation until the conclusion of the processes before the Court […], so that RCTV […] may continue to operate normally […]; that it abstain from threatening or carrying out against said station, as well as all the journalists, directors, shareholders and employees of that media […], any form or act of arbitrary cancellation or non-renewal of the concession that allows it to operate as a open television station in Venezuela; that it abstain from any other action addressed to illegitimately restricting the freedom of expression and properties and, in general, the human rights of those who sign [the request for provisional measures], and that the totality of the provisional measures [granted] by the Court […] be ratified. 8. The brief of May 29, 2007 and its appendixes, received on June 4, 2007 at the Secretariat of the Court, through which fourteen people,5 two of which had enacted the brief of May 28, 2007,6 (supra Having Seen paragraph 7) alleged “victims and applicants, in the case currently being processed before the Inter-American System[, …] embrace[d] the [mentioned] request presented before the Court […] asking the Court to urgently adopt immediate Provisional Measures before the imminent danger that grave and irreparable damages be caused to [their] human rights, specifically against their freedom of expression, caused by the closing of the transmissions [of RCTV].” In said brief, besides coinciding with that argued in the mentioned request (supra Having Seen paragraph 7) they stated, inter alia, that: a) on “May 27, 2007 at 11:59:59 the State […] executed its decisions both to close RCTV for the alleged expiration and non-extension of the concession and the measure to take or seize the transmission equipment,” and b) “the request to adopt these Provisional Measures by the Court […] would also be base[d] on the need to protect [them] in [their] condition of victims in the Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. v. Venezuela […] whose application has been presented by the Commission […] before the […] Court and whose situation has been worsened in an extreme manner by the recent decisions adopted by the State.” Based on the above, in this brief they asked the Court to order the following provisional measures to the State: 5 Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado, Eduardo Sapene Granier, Wilmer Marcano, Winston Gutiérrez, Isabel Mavarez, Samuel Sotomayor, Anahís Cruz, Herbigio Henríquez, Armando Amaya, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Pedro Nikken, Noé Pernía, and Carlos Colmenares. 6 Mrs. Isabel Mavarez and Mr. Eduardo Sapene.