6. The brief of February 26, 2013, in which the Inter-American Commission referred, motu proprio, to this request for provisional measures presented by the representatives and considered it “admissible, owing to the significant visibility that the leaders proposed as beneficiaries have had during the substantiation of the case of Marino López et al. (Operation Genesis) and to the progressive increase in the intensity and frequency with which a series of attacks and harassment against the members of the displaced populations from the Comunidades de Autodeterminación Vida and Dignidad (CAVIDA) have occurred in the months before and the days following the hearing.” The Commission considered that, owing to their situation as presumed victims, and their special visibility and active leadership in the context of the case being considered by the Court, there was sufficient evidence to understand that there was a relationship between the exacerbation of the situation of danger and the progress of the case before the Court. The Commission mentioned that the proposed beneficiaries were in a “situation of aggravated vulnerability” as a result of the lack of an effective response by the State, the gravity of the events described, and the “situation of additional stigmatization” to which they had been exposed in the context of the proceedings before the Court. Consequently, the Commission “consider[ed] that the Court’s intervention was important and necessary in order to avoid irreparable damage to the life and personal integrity of the proposed beneficiaries.” In particular, when summarizing the procedure on preventive measures, the Commission reiterated some of the facts mentioned by the representatives and underscored the following: a) In July 2003, the Commission had visited the beneficiary communities, corroborating in situ the situation of vulnerability and risk, owing to the insecurity, which had led to the adoption of preventive measures. It indicated that, currently, those preventive measures remained in force and protected the Afro-descendant communities that are members of CAVIDA which have been resettled in the two humanitarian zones in the Cacarica river basin; b) The disproportionate impact of the conflict on the situation of the beneficiaries and the precarious situation in which they find themselves; c) Paramilitary groups had infiltrated the “Esperanza en Dios” and “Nueva Vida” Humanitarian Zones, and there had been attacks, presumed murders and forced disappearances, threats and harassment by paramilitary groups, and even by members of the security forces, several of which had taken place within the humanitarian zones and while members of the communities were travelling on the Atrato River; d) Since September 2012, some leaders had received death threats; there were paramilitary checkpoints where boats transporting members of the community had been detained; one of the leaders had been kidnapped and documents had been taken from him related to the defense of the ancestral territories and the case; paramilitaries had made inquiries in the community about the identity of its leaders and, also, there had been overflights of the humanitarian zones and fresh incursions by members of the security forces into the territories of the communities, harassing their members and damaging their crops; e) One of the heads of the Comisión lntereclesial de Justicia y Paz, the organization of the representatives in this case, had suffered a gun attack on his vehicle that had occurred precisely the day after the participation of the victims’ representatives in the hearing before the Court, and which reveals possible actions to demotivate the participation of the representatives and the leaders in the subsequent procedural stages of the case; f) Following the hearing held before the Court, one of the leaders had been threatened because she had attended the hearing; and, in a place known as Tumaradó, paramilitaries had retained the boat that was transporting members of CAVIDA who had attended the hearing. This incident took place in the presence of personnel from the Ombudsman’s Office. In addition, some leaders had been questioned because they had appeared before the Court, and called "guerrilleros"; g) Recently, it had been noted that several documents related to the processing of the case of Operation Genesis before the Court, including the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, were in the hands of a demobilized paramilitary, and 7