gaining access to basic services – health care and education. Accordingly, it considered that the international protection provided by the Court’s provisional measures is fundamental “to help reduce the risk to the beneficiaries and to guarantee their life and personal integrity.” 45. The Court considers that an adequate assessment of the request to extend the provisional measures involves an analysis of the situation described by the Commission, since the mechanism of provisional measures requires that the requisites established in Article 63.2 of the Convention be proved in relation to the individuals in whose favor the measures are requested. The Court recalls that the burden of proof and argument of the beneficiaries and the Commission will increase with the passage of time to determine whether it is appropriate to modify the provisional measures, since the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that protection measures should be of an essentially provisional and temporary nature. 46. The Commission referred, in general terms, to the alleged mass deportations and expulsions that continue in the Dominican Republic, which places the potential beneficiaries in a situation of risk. In this regard, the Court, in accordance with its case law, reiterates that the information provided cannot conclude that the alleged context or the existence of “risk factors” constitutes per se grounds for granting the provisional measures. Furthermore, the Court recalls that in any situation in which the intervention of the Court is requested, so that provisional measures may be granted, there must be a concurrence of three conditions, namely extreme gravity, urgency and the need to prevent irreparable harm to persons. This Court notes that the information presented does not reveal specific acts that have occurred against the proposed beneficiaries that could constitute effects of the alleged context. Moreover, the Inter-American Commission used as grounds for its request the general statements made by the representatives regarding the situation of members of the families, without indicating recent acts that had put their integrity or safety at risk, or providing additional details of possible means, time and place that would allow the Court to adequately appreciate the specific situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and the danger of irreparable harm to each one in accordance with Article 63.2 of the Convention. 47. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that there is not an observable configuration of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that could cause irreparable harm to members of the Medina Ferreras, Gelin, Fils-Aimé, Sensión and Jean families in this matter, and therefore it does not consider admissible the request to extend the provisional measures in their favor at this time. 48. Furthermore, bearing in mind the characteristics of the instant matter, the Court records the fact that these provisional measures were granted on June 16, 2000 (supra Having Seen paragraph 2), and that they have been in force for more than 11 years, and that the Commission issued its Admissibility Report on October 13, 2005. The Court has already indicated that provisional measures are exceptional in nature, are ordered due to the need for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained as long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency persist.12 Thus, provisional measures are related to a specific temporary situation and, by their very nature, cannot be perpetuated indefinitely.13 12 Cf. Matter Clemente Teherán et al. (Zenú Indigenous Community). Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of December 1, 2003, Considering paragraph 3, and Case of Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra note 3 Considering paragraph 30. 13 Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, Order of the Inter-American Court of August 30, 2010, Considering paragraph 70, and Matter of the Peace 12