11. The Court notes that the facts described by the Commission evidence prima facie a situation of grave risk to the detriment of the proposed beneficiaries. In particular, it takes note of what the Commission has mentioned regarding State agents having allegedly taken part in almost every incident reported by the representatives. The Tribunal recalls that the urgency required for the adoption of provisional measures refers to special and exceptional situations that require and deserve immediate actions and responses aimed at averting the threat. These are circumstances that due to their very nature present an imminent risk. The nature of the response to repair the situation derives from the urgency of the threat. This, above all, should imply an immediate and, in principle, rapid measure to address the situation, as a lack of a response would in itself be a danger.9 Likewise, in matters like this one, the extreme gravity of the threat should be assessed taking into account its particular context, as it is clear that should fundamental rights such as the right to life and physical integrity be threatened, the context is one that would require that the adoption of protective measures be considered.10 In this case, the irreparable nature of the damage that may be caused to the right to life and physical integrity of the relatives of beneficiary Maria del Socorro Mosquera Londoño is evidenced prima facie by the murder of Lubin Alfonso Mosquera, who was allegedly attacked and threatened by police officers prior to his death, a situation that other relatives of the beneficiaries have also allegedly faced. 12. The Court takes into account that, according to documentation furnished by the Commission, the majority of the alleged acts of attacks and intimidation have been reported to State authorities. In addition, the Court recalls that in its Order of November 25, 2010, it took note of what the representatives reported regarding some of the alleged incidents to the detriment of relative of Mrs. Mosquera Londoño. However, since the “State [did] not have an opportunity to present its comments on them” and “the alleged victims of said attacks [were] not the beneficiaries of the provisional measures”, it indicated at that time that it could not rule on facts or situations that were not exclusively related to the beneficiaries of the measures.11 Moreover, it notes that the alleged threats against the proposed beneficiaries were also brought to the State's attention in the representatives’ brief dated February 4, 2011 (supra Having Seen 3). 13. The standard of prima facie assessment of a case and the making of assumptions in response to a need for protection have on a number of occasions led the President and the Court to order provisional measures.12 14. Based on all these considerations, the Tribunal finds that the above-described alleged facts reveal, prima facie, a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that justify the adoption of protective measures in order to avoid irreparable damage to people. Consequently, the Court deems it necessary for the State to adopt the measures necessary to protect the lives and physical integrity of the children, grandchildren and daughter-in-law of beneficiary Maria del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, namely: Lubin Arjadi Mosquera, Hilda Milena Villa Mosquera, Iván Alberto Herrera Mosquera, Marlon Daniel 9 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Considering 18; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order the Court of May 26, 2010, Considering 9, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Supra footnote 8, Considering 47. 10 Cf. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra footnote 9, Considering 17, Matter of Pérez Torres et al. (“Cotton Field”). Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of April 24, 2009, Considering 11, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote ¡Error! Marcador no definido., Considering 47. 11 Cf. Matter of Mery Naranjo et al, supra footnote 6, Considering 73. 12 Cf. inter alia, Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 13, 2006, Considering 16; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al, supra footnote 8, Considering 27, and Matter of María Lourdes Afiuni, supra footnote 2, Considering 22. 6