2 […I]nclude the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and […], in general, […] keep [them] informed of the progress of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 3. The reports presented by the State and the corresponding observations to the same made by the Commission and the beneficiaries’ representatives, within the framework of the provisional measures ordered by the Court (supra Having Seen paragraphs 1 and 2). 4. The order of the Court of January 24, 2007, through which a request made by the beneficiaries of the provisional measures and their representatives of January 22, 2007 for the “extension of the Provisional Measures” ordered was declared inadmissible “since those who present[ed] it did not have the requirements of procedural legal standing to present it.” 5. The application presented by the Inter-American Commission on April 20, 2007 against Venezuela, with regard to the Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. v. Venezuela (Number 12.441). 6. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of May 21, 2007, through which it notified the mentioned application to the parties. 7. The brief of May 26, 2007, received on that same day by e-mail at the Secretariat and with its appendixes two days later, through which eight people,3 seven of which are alleged victims identified in that application (supra Having Seen paragraph 5)4, presented a request for the adoption of provisional measures. In this request they also stated that it was presented by “the other journalists and employees and directors of [RCTV] […,] acting on [their] behalf and proceeding also on behalf and in representation of the other people, journalists, directors, and other employees that work at RCTV.” In this request they stated, inter alia, that: a) the applicants have legal standing to present said request “in [their] condition of journalists, directors, and employees of RCTV[, since they are alleged] victims and applicants in a case” before the Court; b) after the last order for the extension of provisional measures ordered by the Court on September 12, 2005, supposedly “new and consecutive facts have occurred, aggravated as of last December 28, 2002.” They state that these acts refer to the “formal announcement of the closing of operations of RCTV through the non-renovation of the concession to this social media; the emission of state acts that formalize that decision to be executed on May 27, 2007 at midnight; the rejection of all the judicial protection measures carried out in national courts; [the precautionary decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice May 25, 2007], through which RCTV is stripped […] of some of its properties in order to put them in the possession and for the use of the new television channel created by the State (TEVES) to operate the VHF frequency that has been operated up to now by RCTV;” 3 Messrs. Luisiana Ríos, Isabel Mavarez, Isnardo Bravo, David Pérez Hansen, Antonio Monroy, Javier García Flores, José Pernalete, and Eduardo Sapene. 4 Mr. José Pernalete is not an alleged victim in the application indicted in the fifth having seen paragraph of the present Order.