3 on November 14, 2007, to submit the comments they could deem adequate on the filing made by the representatives (item 8 above), “especially regarding the request for the broadening of the measures.” 10. The filing made on November 14, 2007, whereby the Inter-American Commission, in view of the request made by the Secretariat through the note of October 30, 2007, submitted the comments on the request for the expansion of the measures filed by the representatives. The Commission stated, among other things, that “the majority of the measures requested by the representatives of the beneficiaries in the request for expansion are related to the duty of the State to safeguard and protect the life, personal integrity and freedom of speech of the beneficiaries, and consequently they only involve a repetition of the measures already ordered by the Court and still effective.” 11. The filing of November 14, 2007, whereby the State, according to the note issued by the Secretariat on October 30, 2007, submitted its comments on the request filed by the representatives on October 23, 2007, and requested the Court, inter alia, to “lift the provisional measures ordered […and] dismiss the request for the expansion of said measures.” 12. The Order issued by the Court on November 21, 2007, by means of which it decided: 1. To dismiss, on the grounds included in the considering clauses 12 to 16 [of said Order], the request for the expansion of the provisional measures that had been filed on October 23, 2007 […]. 2. To request the State to maintain the provisional measures granted through the Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2004 […] 3. To give notice of the […] Order to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to the representatives of the beneficiaries of such measures, and to the State. 13. The submission made on December 2, 2007, with exhibits, and received on the seventeenth day of same month and year, whereby the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, “in their own name and on behalf of all journalists, management and employees of Globovisión,” requested, inter alia, “that [the] scope [of these provisional measures] be expanded.” The representatives grounded their request on the following facts: a) the “[a]ccusation made against Globovisión of setting up a psychological campaign to generate unrest among people. Such accusation was made by the Ministro del Poder Popular para las Relaciones Interiores y Justicia (Minister of the People Power for Domestic Affairs and Justice), […] and by the Director del Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas Penales y Criminalisticas (Director of the Board for Criminal and Criminalistics Scientific Research (CICPC, for its acronym in Spanish) […];” b) “[…]the administrative proceedings for the application of penalties started by the Consejo Nacional Electoral (National Electoral Board) (CNE, for its acronym in Spanish) against Globovisión and the suspension, ordered by said board, of certain programm[es] broadcasted by [the] television station;” c) that some associations and persons linked to the Government had filed a petition before the Office of the Ombudsman and complaints before the General