6 7. That the facts indicated as grounds of the request of May 26th and June 4, 2007 (supra Having Seen paragraphs 7 and 8) are, among others, the alleged threat of reversal and/ or non-renewal of RCTV’s concession as a Venezuelan television station, the alleged formalization of the decision to not renew the concession of the radioelectric frequency operated by RCTV, the alleged lack of judicial guarantees with regard to the recourses presented by the alleged victims in relation to the aforementioned, the alleged execution of the decisions by state authorities to both close RCTV because of the alleged expiration and non-extension of the concession and the alleged seizure of properties of the shareholders of RCTV to put them at the disposal of a new television operator that would occupy that frequency, without the alleged existence of any legal process of expropriation or forceful acquisition. The representatives argue that these facts would necessarily and irreparably result in a breach of the freedom of expression of the alleged victims, different to those considered in the provisional measures already ordered by the Court on November 27, 2002, November 21, 2003, September 8, 2004, and September 12, 2005 (supra Having Seen paragraphs 1 and 2). 8. That according to that stated in its last order issued in Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. v. Venezuela(supra Having Seen paragraph 4), when the Court ordered the adoption of the provisional measures and their subsequent expansion, it determined the mentioned protection for the freedom of expression in direct relation with the danger for their life and right to humane treatment as a consequence of the alleged threats and aggressions to which the beneficiaries of the measures were being subject.7 9. That when a request of provisional measures is presented, it corresponds to the Court to consider only and exclusively those arguments related directly with the extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damages to the persons. Any other fact or argument can only be analyzed and decided on by the Court during the consideration of the merits of a case.8 10. That in this case the existence of a good right cannot be determined without issuing a ruling on the merits of the matter presented, which implies revising the conformity of the facts argued by the alleged victims with the American Convention. A ruling with regard to the merits is done through a judgment within the process of a case presented to the Court and not through the request of provisional measures. In effect, the adoption of the measures requested could imply an anticipated judgment by interlocutory proceedings with the subsequent establishment of some of the facts and their corresponding consequences object of the main debate of the case presented 7 Cf. Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. v. Venezuela (Radio Caracas Televisión –RCTV-). Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 24, 2007, considering clause number nine. See also, Having Seen paragraphs of the Orders adopted by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights on November 27, 2002, November 21, 2003, September 8,2004, and September 12, 2005. See also the Order of the Court of January 24, 2007, considering clause number nine (supra Having Seen paragraph 2). Cf. Matter of Castañeda-Gutman v. Mexico. Request for Provisional Measures regarding the United States of Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2005, considering clause number eight; Case of James et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad & Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998. Series E No. 2, considering clause number 6; Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the President of the Court of April 6, 2001, considering clause number four and Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, considering clause number eight; Case of Cesti-Hurtado v. Peru. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the President of the Court of July 29, 1997, considering clause number five and Order of the Court of September 11, 1997, considering clause number five. 8