2 required] from those natural or legal persons who provide[d] audible broadcasting services [...]. The information was to be personally delivered to CONATEL by the named licensee. In the case of the five stations comprising the ‘Belfort National Circuit,’ the CONATEL officials denied receiving this documentation, arguing that it had not been submitted by the original recipient”; c) “[a]ccording to CONATEL, in those cases where the original licensee of the concession does not personally appear to update the station’s information or where he may be deceased, it [is] understood that [this constitutes] a renouncement of the concession in the first instance, or the expiration of the administrative act that granted the concession in the second”; d) “[t]he proposed beneficiaries of the present request for provisional measures are the members of a family that managed the radio stations of the Belfort National Circuit by way of their family businesses. This concerns: Raiza Elizabeth Istúriz de Belfort, Nelson Enrique Belfort Istúriz (President of the Belfort National Circuit), Antonio José Belfort Istúriz, Zayra Adela Belfort Istúriz, and Luis Miguel Belfort. In addition, other proposed beneficiaries are the following journalists: William Echeverría, President of the National College of Journalists and Director of a morning daily opinion program that was broadcast on this circuit; Beatriz Alicia Adrián García, who together with Mr. Echeverría managed the morning program ‘Venezuela in Two Voices’; Leopoldo Castillo Atencio, Director and Manager of the program ‘Hello, Citizen’; and María Isabel Párraga, Director and Manager of the program ‘At Noon’”; e) “[t]he proposed beneficiaries affirm[ed] that the original licensees effectively did not approach CONATEL for the information update because, [regarding two] of the stations, the original licensee was the father of the Belfort Istúriz brothers[, Nelson Enrique Belfort Yibirín,] who pass[ed] away in 2000. In the other two cases, the Belfort Istúriz brothers had acquired use of the frequencies from the original licensees [...]”; f) “[...] the petitioners declared that since the passage of the Telecommunications Law of 2000 [...] they had formally requested the transformation of their licenses in order to comply with the provisions of this law. CONATEL, however, did not respond to them in the time period established by law. Nonetheless, the petitioners affirmed that they had publicly assumed all duties [...] as radio operators and that [this arrangement] had been accepted by CONATEL. They added that they enjoyed a permanent relation with CONATEL [and that] they were recognized in practice as the legitimate operators of the frequencies. The petitioners cited as example[s] their payment of radio taxes, communications notifying them as to the results of technical inspections carried out at the station, having their names taken down into the radio station census, as well as having been required to produce a series of documents in order for them to provide services in certain cities”; g) “the petitioners indicate[d] that the process for normalizing the licenses was ongoing at the moment in which CONATEL decided to close the stations due to a surprise ‘data update’ procedure”; h) “the petitioners report[ed] that on July 31, 2009 the five stations comprising the Belfort National Circuit had been closed without the State providing them with an opportunity [to be heard and] to defend themselves. [...] The petitioners emphasize[d] that the closure of the stations took place by way of an administrative act issued by the relevant authority without taking into consideration the reiterated attempts to normalize legal licenses on the part of those who had been utilizing the frequencies with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the State over the last decade. [The petitioners] argue[d] in addition that the stations of the Belfort National Circuit had suffered a discriminatory treatment as a result of their independent and critical editorial thrust”; and i) “[according to the Commission, the] petitioners argue[d] that on December 11, 2009, the Ministry of Housing and Public Works announced the reassignment of the frequency previously granted to Caraquenian Radio to the National Assembly.” 3. The Commission’s arguments upon which it bases its request for provisional measures, to wit: a) “[t]he government’s decision to close these radio stations had the consequence of limiting the proposed beneficiaries’ right to freedom of expression, as they lost the spaces whereby they transmitted information, opinions, and ideas on a daily basis, thereby leaving the public without a medium that they regularly used to access this specific information”; b) “it is necessary to adopt provisional measures in order to preserve the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression [in this case] while the Commission decides whether [this] encumbrance is compatible with Article 13 of the Convention”;