6. With respect to gravity, for the purposes of adopting provisional measures, the Convention requires that this be “extreme,” in other words, at its most intense or highest level. The urgency of a situation implies that the risk or threat involved is imminent, which requires an immediate remedy in response. Finally, regarding the issue of harm, there must be a reasonable probability that it will materialize and it must not affect goods or legal interests that can be repaired. 5 7. In response to a request for provisional measures, the Court cannot consider the merits of any argument that is not strictly associated with extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable harm to persons. Any other matter may only be brought before the Court in a contentious case. 6 8. The instant request for provisional measures is not related to a case brought before the Court; instead, it originated from a request for precautionary measures submitted to the Inter-American Commission. The Court does not have information as to whether the facts brought to the Court’s attention are part of a contentious proceeding before the InterAmerican system or whether a petition on the merits related to this request has been filed with the Inter-American Commission. 7 A. Regarding the request for provisional measures 9. The Inter-American Commission stated that on March 3, 2010, it granted precautionary measures MC-52-10 in favor of Margarita Martínez Martínez, Adolfo Guzmán Ordaz (partner), Ada Saraí Martínez (daughter) and Eduardo Abel León (son), due to the events that took place on November 8, 2009, and February 25, 2010. On December 15, 2010, the Commission decided to extend the precautionary measures in favor of members of the Center Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, who are the representatives of the potential beneficiaries. According to the Commission, the State has not fully implemented these measures, given that the petitioners continue to suffer threats, harassment, and stalking. 10. The Commission’s request for provisional measures is based on: a) that a search was allegedly carried out without a warrant, with the use of force and threats, at the home of 5 Cf. Matters of Monagas Judicial Center(“La Pica”), Yare I & Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Prison) , Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & el Rodeo II . Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 24, 2009, Considering paragraph 3, and Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru supra note 1, Considering paragraph 3. 6 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of August 29, 1998, Considering paragraph 6, and Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, Order of the Inter-American Court of November 25, 2011 Considering paragraph 5. 7 On previous occasions, this Court has interpreted that the phrase “a case not yet submitted to the Court” contained in Article 63.2, final paragraph, of the American Convention implies that there must be at least a slight possibility that the matter prompting the request for provisional measures may be submitted to the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. The matter prompting the request for provisional measures may only be submitted to the Court provided the proceeding set forth in Articles 44 and 46 to 48 of the American Convention has been initiated. Cf. Matter of García Uribe et al. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 2, 2006, Considering paragraphs 3 and 4, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding the United Mexican States. Order of the Inter-American Court of May 15, 2011, Considering paragraph 10. 11