10 15. Moreover, the Court notes that, owing to the telephone call that the beneficiary José Ángel Alvarado Favela received on January 29, 2011, the members of the Alvarado family left their homes and are in hiding for fear of possible harm to their life and physical integrity (supra having seen paragraph 7(d)). The Court also takes into account that those family members for whom this expansion of the measures is sought are the spouses and children of the beneficiaries who are currently presumably in hiding as a result of the said threat. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in its Order of November 26, 2010, when extending the present measures to certain next of kin of the beneficiaries who have allegedly disappeared, the Court considered that the harassment of some of the relatives of the said disappeared beneficiaries was of such a nature as to extend to the other family members; particularly since all the beneficiaries proposed at that time shared a home with some of the family members involved in the investigations, as well as with their respective next of kin who had presumably disappeared. From this, it could be inferred that the family members could potentially be in danger. The Court agrees with the President in finding that those next of kin for whom the expansion of the measures is sought on this occasion find themselves in the same situation of potential risk as the next of kin who are presently beneficiaries. Additionally, the Court takes note that the State has not opposed granting provisional measures to the said proposed beneficiaries, but rather has expressed its “full willingness” to adopt the provisional measures that are ordered in this regard (supra having seen paragraph 11(a)). 16. The Court recalls that the requirement of urgency for the adoption of provisional measures alludes to special, exceptional situations that merit and require immediate actions and responses aimed at averting the threat. This refers to circumstances that, by their very nature, imply imminent risk. The urgent nature of the threat gives rise to the urgent nature of the response required to remedy it. Above all, this means that the response should be immediate and, in principle, timely to deal with the situation, since the lack of a response would constitute per se a danger.15 Also, in situations such as the present one, the extreme gravity of the threat must be evaluated in function of the specific context, mindful that if fundamental rights such as the right to life and to physical integrity are jeopardized by this sort of threat, in principle, a context exists that merits considering the adoption of protective measures.16 In the present case, the irreparable nature of the harm that could occur relates to the rights to life and to physical integrity of the beneficiaries’ next of kin. 17. The prima facie standard of assessment and the application of presumptions in the face of the need for protection have led the President and the Court to order provisional measures on different occasions.17 18. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the threatening phone call allegedly received by the beneficiary José Ángel Alvarado Favela and his family’s difficult subsequent decision to leave their homes and jobs and to remain in a secret location reveal prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that justifies the expansion of protective measures in order to avoid irreparable harm to the other members of the family who are in the said situation. Consequently, the Court ratifies the President’s decision and thus considers that the State must adopt the necessary measures to 15 Cf. Matter of the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II, supra note 8, eighteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 7, forty-seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra note 3, eleventh considering paragraph. 16 Cf. Matter of the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II supra note 8, seventeenth considering paragraph; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 7, forty-seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra note 3, eleventh considering paragraph. 17 Cf. inter alia, Matter of the Monagas Judicial Detention Center (“La Pica”). Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of January 13, 2006, sixteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Socio-educational Detention Unit, supra note 8, fifth considering paragraph, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra note 3, thirteenth considering paragraph.