7. As to the issue of gravity, for the purposes of adopting provisional measures, the Convention requires that this be “extreme,” in other words, at its most intense or highest level. The urgency of a situation implies that the risk or threat involved is imminent, which requires an immediate remedy in response. Finally, regarding the issue of damage, there must be a reasonable probability that it will materialize and it must not affect goods or legal interests which can be repaired.9 8. In response to a request for provisional measures, the Court cannot consider the merits of any argument that is not strictly associated with extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other matter may only be brought before the Court in a contentious case.10 9. From the information provided by the representatives, it is clear that the alleged violent attacks and threats have endangered the life and integrity of Sandra Lorena Ramos and of her three minor daughters, which, prima facie, are of a grave character. 10. In this regard, the State has undertaken to investigate the facts, once these are reported, and to promote “the implementation of some level of protection in favor in Mrs. Sandra Lorena Ramos and her daughters, until the situation of risk affecting them has disappeared.” 11. This Court considers the State’s undertaking to be valid, and deems it essential that the events which occurred are reported at the domestic level, so that the competent authorities can act and fulfill their duty of protection and prevention regarding the persons subject to their jurisdiction.11 Likewise, it is timely to recall that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, imposing these not only in relation to the power of the State but also in relation to the actions of private third parties.12 12. Accordingly, given the gravity and urgency of the situation facing Sandra Lorena Ramos and her three minor daughters (supra Having Seen 1), this Court considers it necessary to guarantee their protection through the immediate adoption of provisional measures by the State, in light of the provisions of the American Convention, so that all measures are adopted to effectively prevent actions that affect or endanger their life and personal integrity. 9 Cf. Matters of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), the Capital Region Penitentiary Center Yare I and Yare II (Yare Prison), the Central Occidental Region Penitentiary Center (Uribana Prison), and El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering para. 3, and Case of La Cruz Flores. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 25, 2012, Considering para. 3. 10 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering para. 6, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra, Considering para. 4. 11 Cf. Matter of Alejandro Ponce Villacís and Alejandro Ponce Martínez. Provisional Measures regarding Ecuador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, Considering para. 10. 12 Cf. Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, Considering para. 11, and Matter of the Socio-educational Internment Facility (UNIS). Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2012, Considering para. 21. 4