8 the persons requesting such measures would find themselves were the measures not adopted. To achieve this objective it is necessary that the Inter-American Commission present sufficient grounds addressing the aforementioned criteria and that the State not be able to clearly and effectively demonstrate the effectiveness of any measures it may have adopted domestically.5 8. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires the concurrence of three conditions in order for the Court to be able to order provisional measures: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”; iii) and the need to “avoid irreparable harm to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in all instances in which the Tribunal’s intervention is sought.6 9. From the information furnished by the Commission, it is apparent that the events occurring in Tocorón prison (supra Having Seen 2), demonstrate a prima facie situation of extreme gravity, urgency, and possibly irreparable harm to the rights to life and humane treatment of the inmates and others who may enter this correctional facility. In particular, the extreme significance and intensity of the risk derive from information tending to show that from 2008 until the first half of this year several acts of violence occurred, leaving between 76 and 85 dead (supra Having Seen 2(b) and 7(b)). Likewise, 16 inmates died in September of this year and, according to the information provided by the Commission, the State, and the representatives, between 36 and 46 people were wounded as a product of a violent riot occurring on September 27-29 in which firearms were discharged and grenades were detonated (supra Having Seen 2(d), 7(c), and 9(d)). Recently, in October 2010, another inmate met a violent end (supra Having Seen 2(e)). The Commission also highlighted the lack of control regarding firearms smuggling and the possession of these weapons inside the facility, while the State noted that in the “peaceful capture” of the correctional facility inspections of the entire area resulted in the discovery of contraband. For their part, the representatives maintained that during these aforementioned events, the inmates’ belongings were seized. Furthermore, in the inmates’ sheds and workshops, which were set alight by the authorities, “all the belongings of the inmates who slept therein” were also burned (supra Having Seen 2(c), 7(d), and 9(e)). In addition, the Commission stressed the statistics on dead and wounded inmates recorded in the Venezuelan prison system over the past several years and concluded that “Venezuelan prisons continue to be the most violent in the region.” Similarly, the representatives highlighted increases in the number of dead and wounded, a fact which “continues to be a constant feature of Venezuelan prisons.” On the other hand, the State expressed the sentiment that “it will not rest until consolidation of the Venezuelan prison system is achieved with the broadest possible participation.” In this regard, the representatives recognized the actions undertaken by the State in order to humanize the prison system. However, they noted that “[these actions] have been neither sufficient nor conclusive” as the problems have only grown more acute. 10. According to information provided by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, the latter has taken specific steps in order to protect the lives and physical integrity 5 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering clause nine; and Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 3, Considering clause eight. 6 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fourteen; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 2, Considering clause nine; and Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 3, Considering clause ten.