17 to humane treatment of various ICJP members. In its request, the Commission referred generally to this point, arguing that “the beneficiaries have continued being the target of threats, accusations, surveillance, and harassment,” while it particularly referred to various specific alleged acts against some persons apparently belonging to the ICJP. The Commission noted the continued impunity in the investigations in which “[members of the ICJP] are being accused [as well] as in the inquiries into the threats and harassment they have suffered” (supra Having Seen 2). 14. The President of the Court requested that the Commission (supra Having Seen 8) provide the names of the ICJP members that it considered to be in need of protection via provisional measures and the particular situation of extreme gravity and urgency in avoiding irreparable harm that each of them face. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission sent a letter from the ICJP that, in its opinion, gave a “detailed response to the Court’s request,” and which limited itself to “highlighting some points.” Among them, the Commission stated that the ICJP has 56 members spread among different work groups (supra Having Seen 10). Attached to its communication, there was a list with the names of the employees and the group to which they belonged. However, the Commission did not adequately satisfy the President’s requirement concerning specifically describing each person’s situation of extreme gravity and urgency in avoiding irreparable harm. In general terms, the Commission reiterated information already present in its request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen 2). 15. The Court notes that by way of the Commission’s May 4, 2010 communication (supra Having Seen 6), it apprised the Court of “new information” presented by the ICJP concerning, among other things, alleged facts in relation to some persons apparently belonging to the ICJP. Furthermore, through the communication of June 23, 2010 the Commission “transmitted” to the Court a letter from the ICJP in which it referred to “new instances” of threats, harassment, and alleged plans to make attempts against the life and limb of the ICJP members. Without further argument, the Commission indicated that the content of the ICJP’s letter confirmed that its members “find themselves in a situation of utmost gravity and vulnerability, while their lives and right to humane treatment remain in risk of imminent harm” (supra Having Seen 14). 16. By the same token, through its letters of September 13 and 14, 2010 (supra Having Seen 19, 20), the Inter-American Commission “informed” the Court that the ICJP had made it aware of new facts essentially amounting to alleged threats, harassment, and intimidation against some of its members. The Inter-American Commission did not specify who these people were except for having mentioned Mr. Danilo Rueda. The Commission also neglected to specify the nature of these acts or when they were carried out, even in the case of Mr. Rueda. The Commission also “informed” the Court of the ICJP’s position that state agents received “economic support in order to carry out surveillance on three members of the organization,” but did not provide the Court with any more information. Having regard for the foregoing, the Commission stressed that “the members of the Inter-Ecclesial Commission on Justice and Peace find themselves in a situation of utmost gravity and vulnerability, while their lives and right to humane treatment remain in risk of imminent harm.” 17. In this regard, the Court considers it relevant to remind the parties that the mechanism for provisional remedies requires showing that the conventional benchmarks of gravity, urgency, and irreparability of harm indicated in Article 63(2)