7 these that must be analyzed in the case in point in order to determine whether the said extreme urgency exists according to the criteria to be examined below. 4. Regarding the persistence of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage 19. That, regarding the persistence of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries, the representatives presented diverse arguments relating to: (1) the context in which human rights defenders carry out their work; (2) “accusations made directly by senior public officials and State institutions,” and (3) “acts of criminalization carried out with the full acquiescence of the State.” 4.1. Alleged “exacerbation of the context of violence in which human rights defenders in Venezuela carry out their work” 20. That the representatives indicated that: “[c]urrently, in Venezuela there has been an evident exacerbation of the deterioration in the labor rights of human rights defenders” owing to “threats and acts of criminalization after they have publicly stated their position on the human rights situation.” The representatives alleged that “over the last four years there has been a growing and deliberate practice of identifying human rights defenders as ‘enemies of the revolutionary process,’ ‘traitors to their homeland,’ ‘imperialists,’ ‘golpistas,’ (individuals attempting a coup d’état) or ‘conspirators’ by groups that openly enjoy the State’s acquiescence. These acts of harassment and violence are widely publicized and often clearly sponsored by State funding.” 21. That, when describing the relationship of this alleged context with this specific case, the representatives alleged that “there is a campaign of acts of criminalization against [COFAVIC] which intensifies each time this non-governmental organization plays a relevant role before the inter-American system or when it acquires public visibility denouncing cases of human rights violations. As a result of this intimidation, [the organization] has been obliged to drastically reduce its public appearances and the movements of its members.” 22. That, in order to determine whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage exists or persists, the Court can assess all the political, historical, cultural or other factors or circumstances that affect the beneficiary or that make him vulnerable at a specific moment in time and that expose him to violations of his rights. This situation can increase or decrease over time depending on innumerable variable but, as indicated previously, only extreme and urgent situations call for protection through provisional measures. 23. That, first, there may be a series of factors or circumstances that reveal significant violence against a group of individuals in particular, which place these individuals in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency of experiencing irreparable damage. This extreme situation – for example, a series of major attacks on the group to which the beneficiary belongs that reasonably allow it to be inferred that he will also be attacked – can justify granting provisional measures, even in the absence of a recent direct threat to the said beneficiary. The assessment of the existence of this series of factors is distinct from that carried out during litigation, where attribution of international responsibility to the State for carrying out or tolerating this practice is debated. The provisional measures procedure only focuses on verifying a situation of danger at a specific moment and does not constitute a prejudgment of the case or the fundamental problem.