7 13. That, as indicated in the Order issued in Matter of the “Globovisón” Television Station v. Venezuela (supra Having seen paragraph 2), when the Court decreed the adoption of the provisional measures, the said protection of the freedom of expression was determined in direct relation to the danger to life and personal integrity as a result of the alleged threats and attacks against the beneficiaries of the measures. 14. That, in the case of requests for provisional measures, the Court must only take into consideration those arguments that are strictly and directly related to extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument can only be considered and decided by the Court when considering the merits of a contentious case.1 15. That, in this case, it is not possible to determine fumus boni iuris without making a ruling on the merits of the matter in question, which would imply an assessment of whether the facts alleged by the representatives are in conformity with the American Convention. A decision on merits is made in a judgement delivered in the course of the proceedings on a contentious case lodged before the Court, and not while processing provisional measures. The adoption of the requested measures could imply an incidental prior judgment, with the consequent establishment of some of the facts and their respective consequences, and these are the object of the principal dispute in the case lodged before the Court.2 Therefore, it is not appropriate to order the requested expansion of the content of the measures (supra Having seen paragraph 8), in the terms of Article 63(2) of the Convention 16. That this Order does not prejudge the existing dispute between the parties in the case of Gabriela Perozo et al., or the matters described in the said request. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 20, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of Castañeda-Gutman v. Mexico. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2005, eighth considering paragraph; Case of Juan Humberto-Sánchez v. Honduras. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Court of February 7, 2006, seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. v. Venezuela Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 3, 2007, ninth considering paragraph. See also: Case of Cesti-Hurtado v. Peru. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of September 11, 1997, fifth considering paragraph, and Case Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, eighth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Matter of Castañeda-Gutman v. Mexico. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico, supra note 11, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. v. Venezuela.Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela, supra note 11, tenth considering paragraph.