harassment of human rights defenders in Chihuahua would lead to the presumption of a situation of risk to the life and integrity of those representatives (supra Having Seen 8). Likewise, the President takes note of the State’s comments in this regard to the effect that the Commission does not refer to specific facts in connection with the representatives that would reveal a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. 20. In relation with the aforementioned context of harassment of human rights defenders, the President deems it opportune to reiterate what the Court indicated in its Order dated November 26, 2010.17 At that time, the Tribunal explained that although in order to determine whether a situation of extreme gravity and urgency for preventing irreparable damage exists the Court can weigh the whole of the political, historical, cultural or other factors or circumstances that affect beneficiaries or place them in a situation of vulnerability in a particular moment and expose them to violations of their rights, only specific extreme and urgent circumstances can be covered by provisional measures. In this sense, the Court indicated that a collection of factors or circumstances can exist revealing grave aggression against a specific group of persons that places those persons in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and at risk of suffering irreparable damage. In that extreme situation, the granting of provisional measures can be justified even without a direct threat to the beneficiary if a series of grave attacks against the group to which the beneficiary belongs allows it to be reasonably inferred that the beneficiary will also be attacked. Nevertheless, the Court indicated that there are also situations in which are not like this and that those situations in and of themselves do not represent extreme gravity and urgency and risk of suffering irreparable damage for particular groups. In that case, the context serves only to define the specific threat against the beneficiary and not to justify in and of itself the granting or maintaining of provisional measures.18 20. With regard to the request for broadening to the benefit of the representatives, this Presidency observes that at this time the Commission again requested that provisional measures be granted to the benefit of five representatives whose prior request for provisional measures was rejected by the Tribunal in its Order of November 26, 2010.19 In that Order, the Court found that the supposed context did not per se justify the granting of provisional measures to the benefit of those representatives - that is, that this alleged context was not sufficient basis for broadening the provisional measures in the absence of specific facts allowing for sound conclusions with regard to the alluded-to effects of that context in the specific matter. 21. At this time, the President reiterates what the Tribunal had ruled in the sense that it cannot be concluded from the information provided that the alleged context of harassment of human rights defenders constitutes per se a basis for granting provisional measures to the benefit of the representatives. This Presidency observes that the information submitted does not indicate that any concrete incidents have taken place against the proposed beneficiaries - the representatives of the beneficiaries - that could constitute the effects of the aforementioned alleged context. 22. Therefore, this Presidency does not observe prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that could result in irreparable damage to the 17 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 6,6 18 Cf. Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, Considering 19; Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009, Considering 24, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 6, Considering 62. 19 At that time, the Tribunal rejected the request to broaden these provisional measures to the benefit of Patricia Galarza Gándara, Brenda Andazola, Luz Esthela Castro Rodríguez, Oscar Enríquez, Javier Ávila Aguirre, and Francisca Galván. Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 6, Considering 4. 10