69 petition of cassation with the Supreme Court, all within the space of five months. From the information available, it cannot be conclusively determined that the Prosecution’s decision, upheld by three different courts, was in violation of that right, or inconsistent with the duty to investigate. Hence, the Commission concludes that the State did not violate articles 8 and 25 in relation to the criminal complaints filed by RCTV. 5. The court proceedings related to the provisional measures ordered for the staff of RCTV 220. Finally, the petitioners allege that on May 21, 2007, in executing the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court in the Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. regarding Venezuela, RCTV had petitioned the 33rd Preliminary Examining Court of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Court Circuit to request protection for the perimeter of the channel’s headquarters and for its staff. The 329 petitioners point out that the protection was ordered on May 24, 2007, but that on May 25, 2007, the alternate judge presiding over the 30th Court was replaced by another judge who immediately decided to 330 revoke the protective measures ordered the previous day. According to what the petitioners are alleging, RCTV was not notified of the decision to revoke the protection until June 6, 2007, which meant that the journalists and employees of RCTV “had, on Sunday, May 27, 2007, the false sense that their 331 physical and moral safety was being protected.” For the petitioners, the measures meant that “the shareholders, executives, journalists and other employees of RCTV did not have the opportunity to turn to 332 the courts for an independent and impartial decision on their rights.” 221. For the Commission, the alleged failure to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is extremely disturbing. In the instant case, the allegation made by the petitioners is all the more serious because of the abrupt removal of the judge who ordered the measures of protection for the staff of RCTV, in keeping with what the Inter-American Court had ordered, and her replacement by another judge who immediately revoked the protection. Nevertheless, the Commission observes that these allegations are not part of the crux of the complaint filed with the IACHR in the instant case –i.e. the non-renewal of RCTV’s concession- and were thus not included in the 333 characterization of the facts that the IACHR conducted in its admissibility report in the instant case. The Commission therefore considers that these facts must be discussed within the framework of the compliance with the provisional measures ordered in the Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. regarding Venezuela or in a separate petition. It therefore decides not to issue a finding on this issue at this time. VI. CONCLUSION 222. Based on the considerations of fact and law contained in this report, the IACHR concludes that the Venezuelan State is internationally responsible for having violated, to the detriment of 334 the victims who were employees of RCTV and the shareholders and board members Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome and Jaime Nestares, the rights enshrined in articles 13 and 24 of the American Convention, together with the general obligations established in Article 1(1) of the treaty, in the terms set 329 Annexes 88-91, Thirty-third Preliminary Examining Court of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Court Circuit, Judge Nathali Mariñez Silva, Orders Nos. 575-07, 576-07, 577-07 and 578-07 of May 24, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 116. 330 Annex 92, Thirty-third Preliminary Examining Court of the Metropolitan Caracas Criminal Court Circuit, Judge Erickson Laurens Zapata, Case No 33C-997-02, Decision of May 25, 2007, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, Attachment 116. 331 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 192. 332 Annex 1, Communication from the petitioners received on February 18, 2010, p. 193. 333 Cf. IACHR, Report No. 114/11 (Admissibility), Marcel Granier et al.v. Venezuela, July 22, 2011, paragraph 41. 334 Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Eladio Lárez, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño.