measures, namely: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”, and iii) that they try to “avoid irreparable damages to the persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in all situations in which the Tribunal’s intervention is requested.5 7. Regarding gravity, for the purposes of the adoption of provisional measures, the Convention requires that it be “extreme” - that is, that it be at its most intense or highest level. Its urgent nature means that the risk or threat involved is imminent, which requires that the response for their solution be immediate. Finally, regarding damage, there must be a reasonable probability that it be carried out and it must not affect legal rights or interests that can be repaired.6 8. When presented with a request for provisional measures, the Court cannot consider the merits of any argument apart from those strictly related to extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damages to persons. All other matters can only be brought before the Court in a contentious case.7 9. The Court observes that the petitioners have referred to acts of “harassment, persecution, or intimidation with false accusations” by police agents, consisting of an alleged detention, request for documents, and unjustified attempt to search the vehicle of Mr. Ponce Villacís, as well as alleged surveillance and the presence of police officers while he was in a public place. In this regard, the Court considers that these facts do not indicate an extreme gravity meriting the application of provisional measures. As far as the alleged damage, the information provided does not provide elements sufficient to lead to the conclusion that there is a possibility that damage will take place to the detriment of the petitioners’ lives or personal integrity. Due to the absence of the elements of extreme gravity and irreparable nature of the damage, it is not necessary to analyze the requirement of urgency in this case. 10. Additionally, Messrs. Ponce did not report on whether these facts were denounced before the competent domestic authorities. For its part, the State reported that “these facts have been brought before […] the Ministry of the Interior of Ecuador, […] as well as the General Command of the National Police Force.” Likewise, it referred to its policy for the protection and guarantee of human rights and mentioned that the State undertakes the commitment to inform the Court of the result of the investigations carried out in the present case. Based on this, it is necessary for the alleged facts to be denounced internally so that the competent authorities have the opportunity to act and fulfill their duties to protect and prevent on behalf of the people subject to State jurisdiction. 11. Based on the aforementioned and the information filed by the representatives, the Tribunal concludes that all the requirements set forth in Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 27 of the Rules of Procedure have not been met. This request for provisional measures must therefore be denied. 5 Cfr. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering 14; Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011, Considering 2, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes, supra footnote 1, Considering 12. 6 Cfr. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Prison), Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 24, 2009, Considering 3; Matter of the Colombian Commission of Jurists. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of November 25, 2010, Considering 6, and Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of February 25, 2011, Considering 8. 7 Cfr. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering 6; Matter of Eloísa Barrios et al., supra footnote 2, Considering 3, and Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility, supra footnote 6, Considering 9. 5