6 CONSIDERING: 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977, and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. That Article 63(2) of the Convention establishes that: In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With regard to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission. 3. That, in this regard, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish that: At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. [...] With regard to matters not yet submitted to it, the Court may act at the request of the Commission. [...] 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the general obligation of the States 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 provisional measures decreed in the Order of the Court on September 4, 2004 (supra Having seen paragraph 2) and ratified by the Order of the Court issued on November 21, 2007 (supra Having seen paragraph 12) are still in force. 6. That, following the said order for provisional measures, the Inter-American Commission lodged an application before the Inter-American Court for the Court to establish the alleged responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights to freedom of expression, a fair trial, and judicial protection of 44 persons, and of the right to humane treatment of six persons. These people are also beneficiaries of the provisional measures already ordered by the Court (supra Having seen paragraphs 2 and 4). 7. That, on October 23, 2007, the representatives submitted to the Court a request for the expansion of the scope of the provisional measures that had been ordered (supra Having seen paragraph 8), and on November 14, 2007, the State requested that the measures be lifted (supra Having seen paragraph 11). Through an order issued on November 21, 2007, served on December 20 of even year, the Court decided to dismiss the abovementioned requests (supra Having seen paragraph 12). 8. That the representatives have filed a new request for the expansion of the measures, whereby they allege that the facts upon which they ground the request, would pose a threat to the life, personal integrity and freedom of speech of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (supra Having seen paragraph 13).