10 11. It is crucial for journalists who work for the media to enjoy the necessary independence and protection to fully perform their functions, since it is they who keep society informed, and this is an indispensable requirement for society to enjoy full liberty and to strengthen public debate. 4 12. The Court has ordered protection of a plurality of persons who have not been named previously, but who are identifiable and can be determined, and who are in a situation of grave danger. 5 To effectively ensure the rights set forth in the American Convention, the State Party has the obligation to protect all persons under its jurisdiction. This means, as the Court has said, that said general obligation applies not only with respect to the power of the State but also with respect to actions by private third parties. 6 13. The Court deems it indispensable to reiterate the need to adopt measures of protection of the lives and safety of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered by the Court to date (supra Having Seen 1 to 5 and 10). 14. Before adopting urgent measures, the President granted the State a term to submit its observations on the request for expansion of provisional measures filed by the Commission (supra Having Seen 9), and the State made no observations on the matter. 15. After examining the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the President’s July 27, 2004 Order (supra Having Seen 10), as well as the information subsequently contributed by the representatives of the beneficiaries (supra Having Seen 11), the Court deems that there continues to be, prima facie, a threat both to freedom of expression and to the rights to life and safety of all the journalists, management, and workers of Radio Caracas Televisión, as well as those of other persons in the facilities of said broadcaster or who are associated with the journalistic operation of this broadcaster. The prima facie standard of assessment in a case and application of presumptions regarding the need for protection have led the Court several times to order provisional measures. 7 16. In view of the considerations above, the Court deems that the measures adopted by the President in his July 27, 2004 Order must remain in force (supra Having Seen 10), for which reason it ratifies them to their full extent. 4 See Herrera Ulloa Case. July 2, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 107, para. 119; and Ivcher Bronstein Case. February 6, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 74, para. 150. 5 See Cases of the dailies “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia”, supra note 2, Considering eleven; Case of the Sarayaku Indigenous People. Provisional Measures. July 6, 2004 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Considering nine; and Case of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional Measures. July 5, 2004 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Considering nine. 6 See Carlos Nieto et al. Case. Provisional Measures. July 9, 2004 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Considering nine; Carpio Nicolle et al. Case. July 8, 2004 Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, Considering seven; and Cases of the dailies “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia”, supra note 2, Considering twelve. 7 See Raxcacó et al. Case. Provisional Measures. August 30,2004 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Considering ten; Carlos Nieto et al. Case, supra note 6, Considering seven; and Cases of the dailies “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia”, supra note 2, Considering seven.