expansion of measures on general statements, without providing additional elements of the possible manner, time, and place that would allow the Court to adequately appreciate the specific situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and of irreparable damage to the Camelias-El Tesoro humanitarian zone. Therefore, the Court finds that the provisional measures shall not be extended to the members of said humanitarian zone. 28. On the other hand, as inferred from the Commission’s request, the situation of the humanitarian zones of Caño Manso, Argenito Díaz and el Caracolí, and of the biodiversity zones “No hay como Dios,” “Los Caracoles,” “Orlando Valencia,” “El Martirio,” and “Lejano Oriente” (supra Considering 12, subparagraph d), does correspond to a formal request for expansion of these measures. Effectively, these are humanitarian and biodiversity zones that are not covered in the instant matter. However, for the reasons presented in the considering paragraph above, the Court deems that the measures requested to the benefit of the members of those areas are also inadmissible. 29. With regard to the alleged “plan for mass murder of male and female leaders,” the Court observes that the Commission has referred to this plan in very general terms, and that it also failed to provide elements that would allow for an assessment of the specific situation and the need for special protective measures to the benefit of Ligia María Chaverra, Uriel Tuberquia, Enrique Petro, Manuel Denis Blandón, Erasmo Sierra, Eustaqui Polo, Ladis Tuirán, Nohemi de Saya, Alfonso Saya, Santander Nisperuza, Liria Rosa García, Raúl Salas and Miguel Hoyos. The Court notes that in the Orders of February 2008 and August 30, 2010, handed down the instant matter (supra Having Seen 1), it ordered the State to adopt the necessary special protective measures to the benefit of Ligia María Chaverra and Manuel Denis Blandón. In addition, pursuant to the Order of August 30, 2010, the Court noted that the State is providing protective measures to Enrique Petro, and urged it to continue adopting the individual measures necessary to his benefit. In this regard, in its request the Commission did not clarify or present arguments with regard to why additional or different protective measures would be necessary for these persons. The Court reiterates that the mere existence of “risk factors” does not in itself satisfy the requirements of extreme gravity,” urgency and irreparable damage8 under the terms of Article 63(2) of the American Convention sufficiently to grant or expand provisional measures. Therefore, the Tribunal rejects the request made by the Commission to the benefit of all of the abovementioned persons. 30. Without detriment to the foregoing, the Court reminds the State that Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of State Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all individuals under its jurisdiction, under all circumstances. Consequently, independently of the existence of specific provisional measures,9 the State is especially obligated to guarantee the rights of all members of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó Communities. The Court emphasizes that in the instant Order, the measures adopted by the State to address the situation of the members of these communities (supra Considering 18 to 23) have already been mentioned. The Court therefore urges it to continue in those efforts. 8 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering 4; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palmo et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering 15, and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering 35. 9 Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, Considering 52. 11