b) The acts of harassment to which Mr. Galdámez and his relatives have been subjected, presumably in retaliation for his work as a journalist and for his critical editorial stance toward the current government, are of the utmost gravity. During the period in which the precautionary measures grant by the Commission were in force, and despite them, the possible beneficiary and his family have continued to be subjected to harassment and threats that were acted on in September 2010, when some of the possible beneficiaries were subjected to an attack with firearms. The threats and harassment have increased in recent months. Likewise, the situation is one of the utmost gravity given that: i) the context is one of intimidation, threats, and surveillance against journalists critical of the government following the coup d’état in Honduras; ii) various acts of harassment and threats described by the representatives demonstrate that the perpetrators have knowledge of Mr. Galdámez’ place of residence and work; they also indicate that his activities and the movements of his children are being followed and monitored; iii) the attack with a firearm suffered by Mr. Galdámez and his son indicates the grave threat against "his life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression, not only because of the attack itself[,...] but also because of the intimidating message that has continually been expressed,” and iv) there is a lack of information on whether the facts that gave rise to the precautionary measures have been cleared up. c) the nature of the rights threatened - that is, life and personal integrity for all the alleged beneficiaries and the freedom of expression of Galdámez, as well as his ability to continue working in journalism and information - constitute extreme irreparability of the consequences that the request for provisional measures seeks to prevent. d) The facts presented suggest that the risk of damage to the detriment of the proposed beneficiaries is imminent. The State has not taken the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Galdámez and his family, nor to protect the journalist’s freedom of expression. The State has been aware of the facts giving rise to the broadening of precautionary measures to the benefit of Mr. Galdámez since at least the month of July 2009. The incidents of threats and harassment have been communicated to the State and at least one of them has been denounced before the Office of the Attorney General” (supra Having Seen 2(f)(ii)). Nevertheless, there is no indication of any case in which State authorities have taken steps towards clearing up the facts denounced. This could lead to the repetition and worsening of the threats. The continuous nature of the threats allows for the presumption that the precautionary measures ordered by the Commission have not taken effect even though the State reported that it had reached an agreement with the beneficiary of those measures on the system for protection. It appears that the risk factors that gave rise to the precautionary measures have not been neutralized. This presumably generates a worsening of the situation of risk faced by the proposed beneficiaries. 4. The Inter-American Commission's request, based on Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure, asks the Court to require the State to carry out the following: a) Implement provisional measures to the benefit of Mr. Galdámez, his companion, and children with the purpose of protecting their lives, personal integrity, and freedom of expression;