8 24. That, second, a different situation from the one described above may exist, which does not, in itself, represent extreme gravity and the urgency of avoiding irreparable damage to a determined group. In this case, the said situation will merely help the Court assess the specific threat to the beneficiary and will not justify, of itself, granting or maintaining the provisional measures.8 25. That, in this case, the Court considers that the evidence provided does not allow it to conclude that the supposed harassment of the human rights defenders in Venezuela takes place in a situation such as the one described in considering paragraph 23. Consequently, the alleged Venezuelan context does not justify, per se, maintaining the provisional measures. 26. That, nevertheless, the effect of intimidation and voluntary restraint in the exercise of their work that may occur in a context of harassment against defenders is an aspect that should be assessed together with the merits of the case. In the context of litigation, it would be admissible to determine the presumed international responsibility of the State for the alleged effects of this intimidation and voluntary restraint. Also, by means of the measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition derived from the said attribution of international responsibility, measures could be adopted that might help overcome the alleged serious consequences of a context of harassment of human rights defenders. 4.2. Alleged “accusations made directly by senior public officials and State institutions” against the beneficiaries 27. That the representatives referred to a pattern of harassment perpetrated directly against the beneficiaries and the organization to which they belong, attributable to the declarations of State officials who constantly discredited them and questioned their work. To justify their allegations, the representatives cited a series of declarations made by different public officials over recent years. 28. That the Commission considered that “while the danger exists to the work performed by COFAVIC as an organization that defends human rights, a danger to all its members should be presumed, unless evidence arises that specifically disproves this in each individual case.” It added that “the [said facts] have constituted indirect forms of pressure against the organization.” In this regard, the Commission emphasized that some “members of COFAVIC have been obliged to reduce their public profile,” others “have had to move to the interior of the country and change their habits in order to avoid public exposure and the consequent danger to their safety.” Moreover, they have had “to restrict the access of those who wish to consult their documentation center to users known to the organization, whereas previously anyone could consult it.” Regarding some of the declarations against COFAVIC made by senior State officials, the Commission indicated that “the work of the human rights defenders is also restricted by the declarations made by high-level public officials who discredit their work and generate or exacerbate an adverse context for the defense of human rights.” 29. That, the Court finds that the alleged declarations do not involve possible statements with sufficient importance to justify, per se, maintaining the provisional measures. In this regard, the negative effects that this type of declaration could have in terms, for example, 8 Cf. Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, nineteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, twenty-third considering paragraph.