4 the procedural charges to whom they correspond, and that the rebellions of the state authorities may be considered as accusations that stigmatize the organization; and c) stressed the importance of the work carried out in the society by the defenders of human rights. 6. The Communication of the State of April 9, 2010, by which they presented their observations and signaled, inter alia, that: a) The Court must declare inadmissible the request for provisional measures, since they do not fulfill the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, as was decided by the Court “in the Order of July 9, 2009, in the Case of Liliana Ortega,” in which the circumstances narrated by the beneficiaries were identical to the arguments in the present request; b) Of the declarations transcribed by the representatives “it is not possible to infer the intention of the State to criminalize the work carried out by the victims or to initiate legal actions against COFAVIC or its members.” On the contrary, the Public Ministry has sustained that it owes security, guarantees and answers to the victims of the Caracazo “for which it has pursued the fulfillment of the Order of the Court of September 2009 in this case,” and c) “the information required by the Public Ministry does not contain information that prejudices or diminishes the reputation of the victims of the facts of Caracazo,” but that, on the contrary, said information is requested to favor the victims that are represented, for which it cited diverse legislation about the professional secret, with the goal to show that they are not applicable to the present situation. 7. The brief of the representatives of May 20, 2010, though which they sent to the Court “additional information regarding the request for measures.” Specifically, they signaled the presumed facts that happened during the month of April 2010, in the framework of the questioning made to the next of kin of the victims of Caracazo before the Hundred and Twenty-Seventh office of the Public Ministry, during which they referred that the authorities “are asking catch questions to the victims under the argument of identifying the remains of their loved ones regarding the actions of COFAVIC and of the lawyer Liliana Ortega.” Also, that “the access to the case files of Caracazo has been denied to the lawyers of COFAVIC.” CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Venezuela is a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977, and, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, it recognized the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that, “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. In the terms of Article 27 of the Rules of the Court: