12 12. The aforementioned background and allegations allow for the observation that Ms. María Lourdes Afiuni is prima facie facing a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, given that her personal integrity and life are threatened and at grave risk. The prima facie evaluation standard in a given matter and the use of assumptions given the need for protection have moved the Court to order measures on several occasions.12The irreparable character of the damage that could be caused to the rights to personal integrity and life that are in danger in this situation of grave and urgent risk is evident. In particular, given the position she held as a criminal judge, the adoption of measures necessary to overcome any situation of risk to her life and physical, psychiatric and moral safety is urgent. Those measures should be taken in such a way as to fully guarantee her safety inside the penitentiary where she is located or to allow her to be transferred so as to not be subjected to threats or attacks by other inmates, officials, or any individual who could affect her rights. In the spirit of these urgent protective measures, State authorities must consider the possibility of placing Ms. Afiuni in a detention center or place where her life and personal safety are protected in the best way possible. Additionally, without prejudice to the care that can be provided by doctors who form part of State institutions, in the event of needing specialized medical attention, the State must make the necessary provisions for Ms. Afiuni to be attended to by doctors of her choosing.13 The State must ensure that in the place she is held, Ms. Afiuni is not affected with regard to her right to gain access to relatives and visitors, her attorneys, and the doctors who come examine her. 13. Given that this request for provisional measures has been presented by the InterAmerican commission while the Tribunal is not sitting, in accordance with the provisions of Article 27(6) of the rules of procedure it can, under the circumstances, call upon the State concerned to adopt such urgent measures as may be necessary to ensure the effectiveness of any provisional measures that may be ordered by the Court during its next period of sessions. 14. The adoption of urgent precautions or provisional measures does not imply an eventual ruling on the merits of the matter should the case come before the Court, nor does it prejudge State responsibility for the facts denounced.14 THEREFORE: THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Similarly, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 43/173, dated December 9, 1988, principal 24. 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 Guerrero Larez, supra footnote 6, Considering 14, and Matter of Natera Balboa, supra footnote 7, Considering 15. 13 In a similar sense, Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado. Provisional Measures regarding Peru, supra footnote 10, Considering 6 and Operative Paragraph 2. 14 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 13, 1998, Considering 6; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2010, Considering 16 and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010, Considering 16.