8 tasks in the town Valle de Risco.” Also, “Guayabal is not a community but an agricultural area, thus the effects are much lower.” 7. According to the report issued on March 12, 2010, by the Office for Civil Rights, by request of the full Court (supra Having Seen 6), “the [five] main leaders of the communities related to the development of the hydroelectric project,” who represent the communities of Charco La Pava, Valle del Rey, Valle Risco and Changuinola Arriba, expressed their “satisfaction with the agreements reached with the company” and “explained that the relationship with [the latter] had changed.” Regarding the compensations, the leaders explained that “they were only waiting to sign agreements with five (5) families of the Guayabal community and two (2) families of Changuinola Arriba.” The Office for Civil Rights indicated that the leaders stated that “this inquiry process would have been satisfactory for them” and “assured that the agreements reached regarding the construction of their homes on the resettlement areas and the establishment of compensation amounts agreed with their expectations.” The Office for Civil Rights stated that “the leaders explained that all of the points discussed in the negotiations were reported on a weekly basis to the residents of the communities through conferences, so they could learn all of the details and express their concerns.” It added that “the Regional Office [had] promot[ed] the performance of medical tours with personnel from the Department of Health” to “address the repeated complaint” regarding “the dust produced by the detonations, the noise produced by the sirens and the detonations” and the “lack of medical attention.” 2. Analysis of the alleged extreme gravity, urgency, and irreparability in the instant matter 8. Regarding the requirement of “gravity” for purposes of the adoption of provisional measures, the Convention requires that it be “extreme,” that is, at its most intense or elevated degree. 9. The urgent character of the situation subject to the request for provisional measures implies that the risk or threat involved must be imminent, requiring the remediation response to be immediate. The analysis of this aspect corresponds to assessing the timing and duration of the precautionary or protective intervention requested. For example, in a case where the extension of provisional measures was requested, the Court rejected this request because the person took one year to indicate that he had been threatened. In that regard, the Court considered that this situation “questions the ‘urgent’ nature necessary for the adoption of measures.6” 10. Regarding damages, there must be reasonable probability that the damages will occur, and it must not involve assets or legal interests that can be repaired.7 6 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Provisional Measures and Request for Expansion of Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering twenty-one. 7 Cf. Matters of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Jail), the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering three.