7 9. That as pointed out in the Order issued in the matter “Globovisión” Television Station (supra Having seen paragraph 2), when the Court ordered the provisional measures, the said protection of the freedom of expression was determined in direct relation to the danger to life and personal integrity as a result of the alleged threats and attacks to the beneficiaries of the measures. 10. That, in the case of requests for provisional measures, the Court must only take into consideration those arguments that are strictly and directly related to extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument can only be considered and decided by the Court when considering the merits of a contentious case1. 11. That, in this case, it is not possible to determine fumus boni iuris without making a ruling on the merits of the matter in question, which would imply an assessment of whether the facts alleged by the representatives are in conformity with the American Convention. A decision on merits is made in a judgment delivered in the course of the proceedings on a contentious case lodged before the Court, and not while processing provisional measures. The adoption of the requested measures could imply an incidental prior judgment, with the consequent establishment of some of the facts and their respective consequences, and these are the object of the principal dispute in the case lodged before the Court.2 Therefore, it is not appropriate to order the requested expansion of the content of the measures (supra Having seen paragraph 13), in the terms of Article 63(2) of the Convention. 12. That notwithstanding the foregoing, it is necessary to note that some of the alleged facts used as grounds for the last request for expansion filed by the representatives, refer to circumstances that could be included among those that should be avoided within the scope of protection granted by the provisional measures already ordered and in full force. In this sense, it is worth recalling the considerations that the Court included in the Order issued in the instant case: Consequently, the State must continue to adopt the appropriate and necessary measures to safeguard and protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of the beneficiaries of these provisional measures, especially when they carry out journalistic activities outside the station’s offices, the circumstances in which, according to the reports received, the most recent alleged physical attacks have occurred. The means and coverage of this protection must respond to the requirements of the circumstances, and be adapted, insofar as possible, to the need to protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of the beneficiaries and to the specific situations that occur. In this regard, the Court urges the beneficiaries and the State to collaborate in order to take into account the recommendations made by the State’s security 1 Cf. Matter of James et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 20, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of Castañeda-Gutman v. Mexico. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2005, eighth considering paragraph; Case of Juan Humberto-Sánchez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Court of February 7, 2006, seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 3, 2007, ninth considering paragraph, and Matter of “Globovisión” Television Station. Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 21, 2007, fourteenth considering paragraph. See also: Case of Cesti-Hurtado. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Court of September 11, 1997, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, eighth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Matter of Castañeda-Gutman v. Mexico. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico, supra note 1, tenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela, supra note 1, fifteenth considering paragraph.