-5- 9. That in May 2006, Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza granted a power of attorney unto Messres. Raúl Ángel Ramos De la Torre and César Manuel Saldaña-Ramírez to act on his behalf before the Court (supra Having Seen Clause No. 3), and in February 2007, he empowered Mr. Samuel Fernández-Gómez, President of the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos- Desaparecidos, Ejecuciones Extrajudiciales y Torturados (AFDDEET) [Association of Disappeared Detainees´ Relatives, Extrajudicial Executions and Tortured Individuals] “to resort to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to make a defense of [Mr. RamírezHinostroza’s] and his next of kin’s rights” (supra Having Seen Clause No. 7). 10. That at the time Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza appointed the new representatives he failed to request that the provisional measures be extended to his new counsels (supra Having Seen Clauses No. 3 and 7), to the same extent as they applied to his former attorney. 11. That on the day before today, the representatives Saldaña-Ramírez and Ramos De la Torre requested that the State be ordered to adopt any necessary effective measures “in light of the imminent risk to [… their] lives” in their “capacity as counsels” for Mr. RamírezHinostroza. The representatives stated that certain threatening events and situations had occurred that jeopardized their lives vis-à-vis the commencement of the criminal proceedings conducted against Luis Pérez-Documet, retired general, for the crime of kidnapping against Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza (supra Having Seen Clause No. 10). 12. That this Court deems it convenient to broaden the scope of the provisional measures to protect Messrs. Raúl Ángel Ramos De la Torre and César Manuel SaldañaRamírez, counsels for Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza and representatives before the Court, because the factual background explained by the representatives in the request for extension of the provisional measures filed on May 16, 2007, and its relation to the issues of fact and law addressed by the Commission in its first request for measures of July 22, 2005,5 suggested prima facie that said individuals were in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. The prima facie assessment standard and the application of presumptions when protective measures are needed have made this Court to order measures on several occasions.6 13. That in this order the Court will not address the issues raised in other requests filed by the State and the representatives in May 14 and 16, 2007 (supra Having Seen Clauses No. 9 and 10), respectively, because the term to make objections to said requests has not expired yet. 14. That the Court finds it convenient that the representatives of the beneficiaries and the Inter-American Commission submit, together with their comments on the bimonthly report filed by the State on May 14, 2007 (supra Having Seen Clause No. 9), comments on the requests made by the State in said report. 5 The facts and legal grounds explained by the Commission in the request for provisional measures are summarized in Having Seen Clauses No. 1 and 2 of the Order delivered by the Court on September 21, 2005. 6 Cf. Matter of Guerrero-Galluchi and Martínez-Barrios. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering Clause No. 13; and Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering Clause No. 20; and Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, Considering Clause No. 22.