before the competent authorities to citizens whose rights may be affected by such conduct in order to be able to investigate these claims.” 23. Finally, the State indicated that “it has demonstrated that it has implemented all of the actions available to it to comply with the general obligation to guarantee the rights of the population that lives in the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó” basins, especially with regard to the right to life and humane treatment “of this population group.” Based on the above, it claimed that “the obligation to guarantee implies that the State, in the exercise of its sovereign domestic authority[,] put all its institutions to work protecting the rights of persons[. Hence it is] possible to conclude that when it does so, the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity on which the Inter-American System for Protection is based are not applicable.” The request for expansion presented by the Commission to the Court “must be considered in the framework of” this principle. In this regard, it reiterated that actions have been taken to date to protect not only the beneficiaries of these provisional measures but all members of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó communities, which cover a territory of over 100,000 hectares. It stated that the government is developing a Strategic Plan for Prevention, Protection, and Attention to the Communities in the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó Basins and drafting a bill titled the Victims’ Act that includes a chapter on land restitution, and a Model for Security, Prevention, and Protection of Persons, Groups of Persons, and Communities. In addition, it indicated that “currently 178 persons listed as potential beneficiaries of the […] request for [expansion of provisional measures] are included in and enjoying the benefits of the actions taken within the framework of the Plan for Return of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó River Basins.” Based on this, it concluded that it is not necessary for the Court to make use of an extraordinary and subsidiary protection mechanism by expanding the provisional measures that are in effect, and that there is no legal or factual basis for doing so. In the event of new requests for protection, they can be “processed according to the [internal] guidelines established for that purpose, as has been done repeatedly.” During the public hearing (supra Having Seen 5), the State reiterated that the expansion of the instant provisional measures would only be admissible if extreme gravity and urgency and imminent risk were demonstrated, in conformity with Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 27 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Consequently, it argued that the Commission’s request should be dismissed. D. Considerations of the Court. 24. The Court observes that the Inter-American Commission requested the expansion of provisional measures for the humanitarian and biodiversity zones of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó Communities, which are in different situations, as well as for the alleged specific leaders of those communities. For all of these different circumstances, firstly, the Commission cites as background events that appear in Orders issued by the Court eight, seven, six, and five years ago (supra Considering 10). The current information presented by the Commission to support the request has to do with the alleged fact that in “April 2011,” the National Army allegedly “fully” withdrew Brigade 17 “from the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó area” for approximately eight days, leaving them “fully unprotected” and “at the mercy of alleged paramilitary groups.” In this regard, the Commission also stated, separately, “that dozens of alleged paramilitary individuals” had occupied “certain areas” of the collective land of these communities, and that the authorities were allegedly aware of their presence. The Commission also indicated that only “a small group” of military personnel from Brigade 17 had returned to the region, “but did not return to direct control of the perimeter of the humanitarian areas,” and that a group of “approximately […] 40 paramilitary personnel were present permanently” behind the Humanitarian Zone Camelias-El Tesoro and between the humanitarian zone Caño ClaroAndalucía” (supra Considering 11). In the Commission’s opinion, these facts have led to a situation of shared risk for the humanitarian and biodiversity zones and for the leaders of the 9