5 * * * Request to rescind the provisional measures ordered by the Court 8. That, regarding the obligation to adopt all necessary measures to safeguard and protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of the beneficiaries, the representatives indicated that these measures “had not been implemented by the State, because, even though there are some judicial measures that are designed to protect the Globovisión premises and some of its journalists, these measures are not effective[, because] the physical and moral attacks on the journalists and other employees of Globovisión continue.” In this regard, they have reported alleged physical attacks on the television station’s reporters and employees during 2006 and even 2007, by persons wearing clothing identifying them as belonging to the party in power,” by “members of the Honor Guard of the Presidential Guard,” and by individuals “in the presence of members of the National Guard,” among others. In addition, they provided information on alleged verbal attacks by Government supporters and public officials against Globovisión journalists, management and employees. They also stated that, during a November 2006 meeting with the representatives of the State, they had insisted on the need to implement rapid response mechanisms for the protection of journalists outside the television station’s offices, but the State had not provided an effective response to this request. Meanwhile, the Commission underscored that it had no information about the urgent protection mechanism agreed upon during the above-mentioned meeting and requested the State to provide information on its design and implementation. 9. That the State has affirmed that “from the start, the corresponding protection has been provided by means of the patrols carried out by members of the Caracas Metropolitan Police”; that the Office of the State’s Human Rights Agent has remained in permanent contact with the State’s security agencies to ensure that the provisional measures are complied with as effectively as possible; also, that it had taken different steps before the police authorities to safeguard Globovisión personnel and had informed the company’s legal adviser, Ana Cristina Núñez, of the results of these steps. It also indicated that, in March 2007, a meeting had been held with the Globovisión legal adviser to determine the alleged shortcomings that had arisen in the implementation and monitoring of the mechanisms to protect the Globovisión premises and employees. Regarding “the reports of verbal attacks on journalists […] and other [Globovisión] employees allegedly made by Government supporters and public officials from 2001 to 2006,” the State indicated that “the Attorney General’s Office had entrusted the matter to the thirty-fourth Prosecutor’s office, which, on December 12, 2006, ordered the opening of the corresponding criminal investigation, and this is currently underway.” 10. That, regarding the obligation to adopt all necessary measures to provide protection to the perimeter of the Globovisión offices and the obligation to allow the representatives of the beneficiaries of the measures to take part in planning and implementing the measures, the representatives indicated that it was only on November 30, 2006, as a result of a first meeting with the State representatives State held two weeks previously, that four Metropolitan Police agents were stationed at the doors of the television station. Nevertheless, they alleged that this protection has been irregular and, at most, two of the four agents appointed to protect the offices are on duty. The State acknowledged the existence of shortcomings in this service and reported that it had sent communications to the Director General and the Head of the Caracas Metropolitan Police, among others, so as to improve the provision of security services to the Globovisión employees, in compliance with the Court’s Order. In its report of June 25, 2007, the State indicated that, on May 28,