10 the serious situation of risk the beneficiaries were in, could represent an irreparable damage to their life or physical integrity. Finally, the representatives delivered a document with a series of measures that, according to them, the State must adopt. 13. That in accordance with what was informed by the State in the second meeting held on April 23, 2009 to monitor the urgent measures ordered by the Tribunal’s President, the Government Secretary delivered a document containing a program to consider every and each one of the requests made by the beneficiaries in response to the brief delivered on April 16, 2009 (supra Considering clauses 10 and 12)). The State expressed being totally available to comply with what was ordered; nevertheless, due to the “[lack of] administrative capacity to implement the measures requested by the beneficiaries, viable alternatives were presented to guarantee life and physical integrity of all the beneficiaries. However, the beneficiaries did not accept those alternatives, since, according to their opinion, the answer from the Mexican government denies more than 90% of the request made, matter that the Mexican state does not accept and considers inadmissible". The State mentioned that it has considered several requests of the beneficiaries, among them: a) it brought to the attention of the Secretary of Public Security, the Secretary of National Defense and of the authorities of the municipality of Ayutla de los Libres that provisional measures were ordered in favor of the beneficiaries; b) it visited, on April 21, 2009, the Center for Social Readaptation of Ayutla de los Libres to verify the health and arrest conditions of one of the beneficiaries; it informed that, according to the Secretary of National Defense, there is no personnel deployed in the indigenous areas of Me’phaa and Na Savi and d) during the meeting of April 23, 2009, the State delivered two satellite radios, which were not accepted by the beneficiaries. Lastly, it informed that the beneficiaries “left the meeting without coming to an understanding" in total disagreement with the State and it emphasized that the dialogue between the authorities and the beneficiaries is essential. 14. That the standard of prima facie assessment of a case and the application of presumptions due to the need for protection have, on different occasions, led this President and the Court to order measures.6 15. That the information presented by the Commission, the representatives and the State (supra Considering clauses 8 to 13 proves, prima facie, that the people mentioned by the Inter-American Commission in its request for provisional measures and in the President's Order would be in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, since their lives and physical integrity would be threatened and in serious danger. As a result, the InterAmerican Court deems it is necessary to protect said people by means of provisional measures, in light of the terms of the American Convention. 16. That, as this Court has held on several occasions, that the State is particularly obliged to protect those who work in non-governmental organizations, as well as other groups or individuals who work to defend human rights, for their work constitutes a positive and supplementary contribution to the endeavors undertaken by the State in its role of guarantor of the rights of the people living within its jurisdiction. 6 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, considering clause twenty-two; Case of Adrian Meléndez Quijano et al. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 12, 2007; Considering Clause eleven; Case of Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of January 26, 2009; Considering clause thirty-two.