5 including [...] especially the Metropolitan Police, the Caracas Police and the National Guard, among others. [… S]aid protection was expanded by the aforementioned courts on April 11 and October 20, 2002, thus including both the facilities where said broadcaster operates, and the microwave retransmission antennae that it uses;” c) on May 4, 2004, the Sixty-eighth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas was appointed to “process the extension” of the precautionary measures ordered by the Inter-American Commission in favor of the employees, property and facilities of the Globovisión television channel. On May 6, 2004, in response to a request by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Thirty-third Court with oversight functions in the Criminal Court Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, “ratified the measures adopted before”; and d) The Third Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial Circumscription of the State of Carabobo was entrusted with investigating the facts that took place on March 1, 2004 with respect to Janeth Carrasquilla. The process is in a “state of investigation” and “several witnesses of the facts and the aforementioned victim have been interviewed, and a Medical Forensic Examination of the latter was ordered.” 7. The two communications submitted by the State on September 3, 2004, in which it reported on the measures adopted in the Matter of the “Globovisión” Television Station. The State indicated that it submitted the “information supplied by Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, complementing that already provided [...] regarding actions by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in view of the alleged aggressions to journalists and workers of the ‘Globovisión’ [...] television channel, all the above based on Admissibility Report Nº 7/04, issued on February 27, 2004 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights”. In addition to what was already reported in the August 30, 2004 brief (supra Having Seen 6), the State pointed out that on January 31, 2002 the Second and Seventyfourth Prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas were commissioned, and they began the respective investigation. The State also indicated that “the investigation regarding the instant case is in the investigative phase, during which various useful and necessary steps have been taken to extend elucidation of the facts and determine responsibilities […,] including the interviews with the complainants and approximately forty (forty) citizens [,…] forensic medical examinations of the victims, technical expert assessment of objects gathered, photographic records, and ocular inspections.” Finally, the State indicated that on May 21, 2004, the Sixty-eighth Prosecutor asked Globovisión “to forward the list of the transport units serving said company that suffered material damage in the events reported to the Second and Seventy-fourth Prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas.” WHEREAS: 1. The State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977, and pursuant to Article 62 of that Convention, it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that: