situation of potential risk as the relatives who are current beneficiaries. Additionally, the President takes note that the State has not opposed the granting of provisional measures to the benefit of these proposed beneficiaries. On the contrary, it has expressed its "full willingness" to adopt the provisional measures ordered in this sense (supra Having Seen 11(a))). 16. The President recalls that the urgency required for the adoption of provisional measures alludes to special and exceptional situations that require and merit immediate actions and responses oriented toward averting the threat. These are circumstances that due to their very nature presuppose an imminent risk. The nature of the response needed for remedying the threat is derived from its level of urgency. The response must, above all, be immediate and, in principle, timely in order to address such a situation, as a lack of response would in itself imply a danger.14 Likewise, in cases such as this one, the extreme gravity of the threat must be evaluated based on its specific context, it being evident that if fundamental rights such as the rights to life and physical integrity are compromised by these kinds of threats, the context is in principle one that merits considering the adoption of protective measures.15 In this case, the irreparable character of the damage that could result has to do with the rights to life and humane treatment of the relatives of the beneficiaries. 17. The prima facie evaluation standard in a given matter and the use of assumptions given the need for protection have moved the President and the Court to order provisional measures on several occasions.16 18. By virtue of the foregoing considerations, the President finds that the threatening phone call presumably received by beneficiary José Ángel Alvarado Favela and the resulting difficult decision of the members of the Alvarado family to leave their residences and jobs and take refuge in a secret place indicate prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that justifies the broadening of protective measures with the purpose of preventing irreparable damage to the other members of the family facing the situation. As a result, this Presidency finds that the State must adopt the necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of the nine relatives of the beneficiaries indicated by the Inter-American Commission in its request (supra Considering 7). II. Regarding the request for broadening representatives of the beneficiaries to the benefit of the 19. The President takes note of the arguments expressed by the Commission to request the broadening of these measures to the benefit of the representatives of the beneficiaries, according to which: (i) the threats against the beneficiaries of these provisional measures extend to the representatives of the beneficiaries by virtue of the relationship of these threats with the investigation and allegation of the presumed disappearance of beneficiaries Nitza Paola, Rocío Irene and José Ángel Alvarado, in which the representatives have visibly and actively participated, and (ii) the alleged context of 14 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra footnote 7, Considering 18; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 6, Considering 47, and Matter of the Mery Naranjo et al., supra 22, Considering 11. 15 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra footnote 7, Considering 17; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 6, Considering 47, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra 22, Considering 11. 16 Cf. inter alia, Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 13, 2006, Considering 16; Matter of the Unidad de Internación Socioeducativa, supra footnote 7, Considering 5, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra footnote22 Considering 13. 9