14 organizations, and especially Mrs. Paganele, of being responsible for the riots, mutinies and violence at FEBEM. 20. That the Court understands that said fact –even though it could complicate the tasks performed by Mrs. Paganele and the organization to which she belongsdoes not fulfill the “extreme gravity” requirement demanded by Article 63(2) of the American Convention, as the fact itself does not expose the petitioner to irreparable damage. 21. That, according to the documentation submitted by the representatives, some alleged threats against Mrs. Paganele took place before February, 2005, which gave rise to police investigation IP No. 070/2005 of February 28, 2005. That is to say, more than a year before the request of extension of the provisional measures (supra Having Seen clause No. 10), situation which questions the “urgency” nature necessary for the adoption of the measures. 22. That the representatives stated that the threats against Mrs. Paganele continued after February, 2005. Nonetheless, they gave no further information on the matter, such as the date and the time of the threatening telephone calls, and the action taken to give notice to the national competent authorities. 23. That, even though it is true that the facts which motivated the request for provisional measures or their extension do not have to be fully proven, a minimum degree of detail and information is necessary so as to allow the Court to assess prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. 24. That the State has informed that assistants of the international area and of the National Protection Program for Human Rights Defenders of the Special Secretariat of Human Rights have tried to contact Mrs. Paganele in order to assess her risk situation and to discuss possible measures to protect her, but she “preferred not to meet” them. Furthermore, the State informed that FEBEM, in the context of administrative proceeding No. 2820/05, summoned Mrs. Paganele on three different occasions, so that she could clarify and point out which officers would have threatened her, but she “remained unjustifiably inert”, fact which resulted in the setting aside of the file. 25. That taking the above into consideration, the Court understands that Mrs. Paganele has not provided the State the necessary elements for the assessment of her risk situation and the adoption of certain preventive and corrective measures. 26. That there is no controversy between the parties regarding to the investigations instituted against Mrs. Paganele, for alleged defamation, damage, incitement to crime, ganging or aiding to escape. Regarding that matter, the State has expressed that it has the right to look into any person, if it there are signs of materiality and perpetration of a certain criminal conduct. Furthermore, it pointed out that the Special Secretariat of Human Rights would remain alert regarding to Mrs. Paganele´s case in order to protect the due process of law. 27. That, although the Court is concerned with the complaint filed by the representatives regarding the use of criminal processes as a means to intimidate human rights defenders, it is not its responsibility to deepen into the grounds of the claims against Mrs. Paganele, or if such claims have grounds or not within the context of a provisional measures proceeding. Such a task is within the scope of the