16 . 57. With regard to the facts cleared up in the framework of the precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission, this is an autonomous procedure the Commission applies based on its Rules of Procedure, regarding which the Court does not interfere in any way nor does it know of the case file. 58. The Court observes that in the provisional measures proceedings, started in November 2002 based on a request presented by the Commission, the State was ordered to adopt measures to “shelter and protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of the journalists, directors, and employees of […] RCTV, [and] of the other people within the installations of said media […] or that are directly linked to [that] media’s journalistic operation,” (emphasis added), as well as “offer protection to the perimeter of the headquarters of the social communication firm RCTV [and i]nvestigate the facts.” Therefore, even though the alleged victims of the present case have also been beneficiaries of those measures of protection, the specific or possible group of those beneficiaries is more ample than the one made up be the alleged victims of this case. It is necessary to specify that the proceedings for the provisional measures have occurred in a parallel but autonomous manner to the processing of the case before the Commission and the Court. In short, the object of those proceedings of an incidental, precautionary, and protective nature is different to the object of a case itself, both in its procedural aspects as well as in the assessment of the evidence and the scope of the decisions. Therefore, the arguments, factual grounds, and evidentiary elements cleared within the framework of the provisional measures, even though they may have a very close relationship with the facts of the present case, are not automatically considered as such or as supervening facts. Additionally, the Court has been informed that there is another on-going proceeding before the Commission for a case related to the RCTV television station,39 thus the provisional measures could eventually have some effect on it. Based on all the aforementioned, the actions within the framework of the provisional measures will not be considered in the present case if they were not formally introduced through the appropriate procedural acts. 59. It is appropriate to make reference to that argued by the Commission and the representatives in the merits of the controversy with regard to the effects of the noncompliance of the orders to adopt those measures issued by this Tribunal under Article 63(2) of the Convention. The Court has established that the mentioned stipulation confers a compelling nature to the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal. These orders imply a special duty to protect the beneficiaries of the measures, while they are in force, and their non-compliance could result in the State’s international responsibility. 40 However, this does 39 With regard to the non-renewal of the concession to RCTV, the Commission stated, in a footnote in the application, that after the issuing of the report on merits of the Commission, on March 28, 2007, the Ministry of the Popular Power for Telecommunications and Informatics issued an order (Order No. 002 of March 28, 2007), in which it decided not to renew RCTV’s concession to broadcast once it expired, on May 27, 2007. The representatives, on their part, argued that the threats of a closing through the non-renewal and/or annulment of RCTV’s concession that started in the year 2002 had continued after the report on merits of the Commission had been communicated, and they were made real and consummated with the closing of RCTV, after the presentation of the application. However, the representatives stated that they do not wish to litigate, within the framework of the present case, the State’s decision to close RCTV’s open signal and the execution of that decision on May 27, 2007, but instead they wish to include them as supervening referential facts for the knowledge of the Court, so that the latter may be aware of the context and scope of the threats of annulment and/or closing of RCTV made by the highest State authorities, which are facts included in the application. The petitioners, along with other journalists, cameramen, camera assistants, and other employees and directors of RCTV, filed a Petition regarding the closing itself of RCTV before the Commission on March 1, 2007. Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin, et al. V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations, an Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 through 200. See also, Case of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, considering clause number seven; Case of James et al. Provisional Measures. Order of May 25, 1999. Series E No. 2, Operative Paragraph 2(b); Orders of June 14, 1998, August 29, 1998, May 25, 1999, and August 16, 2000. Series E No. 3, having seen paragraphs 1 and 4; and Order of November 24, 2000. Series E No. 3, having seen paragraph 3; and Matter of the “Mendoza Prisons”, Provisional measures, Order of the Court of March 30, 2006. Considering Clause number ten. 40