3 c) “the State’s latest actions [… would] imply a new failure to comply with its international obligations in what refers to human rights[, since] they directly and deliberately violate the Commission’s conclusions and recommendations included in the Report pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention and therefore the claims presented in the Commission’s application, [exposing those who request], in a virtually irreparable manner, to damages greater than those already caused [to them];” d) “on March 29, 2007, the Ministry of Popular Power for Telecommunications and Information Technology [had] notif[ied] RCTV of Communication N° 0424 of a mere declarative nature, where it confirms the decision of the National Executive to declare the termination of the concession;” […] “however, they deliberately ignored Article 3 of [Decree 1.577], which acknowledges a right for the extension of 20 more years to concessionaries that have complied with the Law during the exercise of their rights as said concessionaries;” e) “the statements offered by the […] Ministry of Popular Power for Telecommunications and Information [would] confirm that the decision of the National Executive and the Instruction that the […] President of the Republic has given [said] Ministry is to prevent that […] RCTV continue operating as an open television station in VHF as of May 28th, as an [alleged] political sanction to its independent and critical editorial line;” f) “the true reason […] behind the decision to […] not renew the concession, [would be] to sanction the exercise of the directors’, journalists’, and other employees’ freedom of speech;” g) “the announcement and […] the formal communication that [they would] only await the expiration [of the] term to suppress RCTV” is a general and imminent threat to the freedom of expression of those employed in social communication; likewise, “it is a breach of the right to work of said employees, as well as to the society’s right to freely receive information;” h) the alleged “governmental threats and decisions to order an immediate closing on May 27th of the present year […], have also caused the employees of RCTV a damage to [their] right to humane treatment, both mental and physical.” Said “threat does not end there, but instead it falls upon the entire society.” Those “threats […] contradict (or at least ignore in a clear manner) the judgment that the [Commission] has already issued with regard to the detrimental effect of the reversal and/ or non-renewal of the concession over the exercise [of the] right to freedom of expression [of the] victims [of the] case currently […] before the Inter-American Court and that has previously resulted in the adoption […] of provisional measures ordered for [their] protection and whose expansion [they request] in an urgent manner through the [mentioned brief];” i) the “State’s decision to close RCTV by not renewing the concession and before the [alleged] lack of judicial protection […] places [the beneficiaries] in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that requires the intervention of the international precautionary judicial protection, in order to avoid the occurrence of irreparable damages to them, the rest of the journalists of RCTV and the Venezuelan society […] This [would] mean [then] that the Court would have to adopt measures to preserve the rights of the parties in controversy, ensuring