3 g. the facts described above were reported to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Venezuela with audiovisual support, digitalized photographs, and recordings; 5. The additional grounds set forth by the Commission in its request for provisional measures, to the effect that: a. “there is a pattern of harassment and acts of aggression and nonprotection directed toward the RCTV journalists working on the streets to cover demonstrations and current political topics,” demonstrated “by means of information supplied in connection with the provisional measures granted by [the Court] in favor of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, and Argenis Uribe, and during the public hearing” held at the seat of the Court on February 17, 2003; b. the year 2000 Annual Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression “expressed concern regarding this situation,” yet to date the harassment against journalists has not diminished; c. the precautionary measures granted by the Commission and their respective extensions have not impeded subsequent aggressions and threats against RCTV employees Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía, and Pedro Nikken, who are more exposed to attacks and aggression because they work “on the streets;” d. to date, the State has not “prosecuted anyone” for the acts of aggression against the RCTV journalists who are protected by the precautionary measures, despite the fact that criminal action crimes in Venezuela must be investigated by the State on its own motion, pursuant to the accusatory criminal system, in which the alleged victim cannot accuse anyone directly before the Judiciary; and e. the “grave acts” of aggression that took place on August 19 and 21, 2003 demonstrate the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding the lives and the right to humane treatment of Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía, and Pedro Nikken, these facts having occurred “within a pattern of continuity of violence, threats, and harassment against journalists in Venezuela.” WHEREAS: 1. The State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977 and, pursuant to Article 62 of that Convention, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention sets forth that, in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, in matters it has under consideration, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, and in matters not yet being heard by the Court, it may act upon a request by the Commission.