8 must assess the matter submitted, the effectiveness of the State’s actions in relation to the situation described, and the degree of lack of protection in which the individuals requesting the measures would find themselves if the measures were not adopted. To this end, the Inter-American Commission must submit sufficient justification to satisfy the requisite criteria and the State must fail to demonstrate clearly and satisfactorily the effectiveness of any measures it may have adopted in the domestic sphere.4 8. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires the presence of three conditions for the Court to grant provisional measures: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency,” and (iii) that the intention is “to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested.5 9. Regarding the gravity of the risk, for the purposes of adopting provisional measures, the Convention requires that it be “extreme”; in other words, that it is at its most intense or highest level. The urgent nature implies that the risk or threat involved be imminent and requires an immediate remedial response. Lastly, with regard to the damage, there must be a reasonable probability of such damage occurring and it should not relate to property or other legal interests that may be reparable.6 10. When presented with a request for provisional measures, the Court may not consider the merits of any argument that is not strictly related to the elements of extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other matter may only be submitted to the Court’s consideration in a contentious case.7 11. From the information presented by the Commission, it is evident that the events that occurred in the Vista Hermosa Prison (supra having seen paragraphs 2 and 8) demonstrate, prima facie, a situation of extreme gravity, urgency, and the possibility of irreparable damage to the rights to life and physical integrity of the inmates of the detention center, and also of any other person who enters the prison. In particular, the extreme gravity and intensity of the situation can be seen from the information provided which indicates that, over the last three years, the number of violent acts in the Vista Hermosa Prison has increased significantly (supra having seen paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d)). In addition, violent acts have also been recorded in 2011; specifically, in February 2011, five inmates died and one was injured in violent acts involving gunfire inside the prison (supra having seen paragraphs 2(f) and 7(e)(x)) and recently, around 100 people were injured in a protest by 4 Cf. Matter of the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Ninth considering clause; Matter of the Socio-educational Detention Unit, supra note 3, sixth considering clause, and Matter of the Aragua Detention Center “Tocorón Prison,” supra note 2, seventh considering clause. 5 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering clause; Matter of the Socio-educational Detention Unit, supra note 3, seventh considering clause, and Matter of the Aragua Detention Center “Tocorón Prison,” supra note 2, eighth considering clause. 6 Cf. Matter of the Monagas Detention Center (“La Pica”); Capital Region Penitentiary Center Yare I and Yare II (Yare Prison); Occidental Region Penitentiary Center (Uribana Prison); Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, third considering clause; Matter of the Socio-educational Detention Unit, supra note 3, eighth considering clause, and Matter of the Colombian Jurists Commission. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, sixth considering clause. 7 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, sixth considering clause; Matter of the Socio-educational Detention Unit, supra note 3, ninth considering clause, and Matter of the Colombian Jurists Commission, supra note 6, seventh considering clause.