6 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 5. That the obligation of the State to adopt the provisional measures ordered in the aforementioned orders of the Court is in force at the present time (supra Having seen paragraphs 1 and 2). 6. That, following the aforementioned orders for provisional measures, the InterAmerican Commission lodged a case before the Inter-American Court, for the Court to establish the alleged responsibility of the State for violating the rights to freedom of expression, judicial guarantees and judicial protection of 20 persons, who are also beneficiaries of the provisional measures already ordered by the Court (supra Having seen paragraphs 1, 2 and 5). 7. That the facts presented as justification for the requests of May 26, June 4 and 19, 2007 (supra Having seen paragraphs 7, 8 and 10), include: the alleged threat of annulment and/or non-renewal of RCTV’s license as a Venezuelan television station; the alleged formalization of the decision not to renew the broadcasting frequency license used by RCTV; the alleged lack of judicial guarantees in relation to the actions filed by the alleged victims; the alleged implementation of the decisions of State authorities to close down RCTV because of the alleged expiry and non-extension of its license, and to seize the assets of the shareholders of RCTV in order to make them available to a new television station that would use the said frequency, supposedly without any legal proceedings for expropriation or forcible acquisition having taken place. The representatives claim that these facts necessarily entail an irreparable violation of the freedom of expression of the alleged victims; and that these facts are distinct from those considered in the provisional measures already decided by the Court in its Orders of November 27, 2002, November 21, 2003, September 8, 2004, and September 12, 2005 (supra Having seen paragraphs 1 and 2). 8. That, as stated in the last Order issued in the case of Luisiana Ríos et al. (supra Having seen paragraph 4), when the Court ordered the adoption of provisional measures and their subsequent expansion, it also decided on the said protection of freedom of expression in direct relation to the danger to life and personal integrity as a result of the alleged threats and harassment to which the beneficiaries of the measures were being subjected.7 9. 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.8 7 Cf. Having seen paragraphs of the Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002, November 21, 2003, September 8, 2004 and September 12, 2005. See also the Order of the Court of January 24, 2007, ninth considering paragraph (supra Having seen paragraph No. 2). 8 Cf. Matter of Castañeda Gutman. Request for provisional measures with regard Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2005, eighth considering paragraph; Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998. Series E No. 2, sixth considering paragraph; Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Court of April 6, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, eighth considering paragraph; Case of Cesti Hurtado. Provisional Measures with regard to Peru. Order of the President of the Court of July 29, 1997, fifth considering paragraph, and Order of the Court of September 11, 1997, fifth considering paragraph.