Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó communities for whom the expansion of the provisional measures was requested. In addition, the Commission also referred vaguely to alleged acts of threats and harassment against various inhabitants of the humanitarian and biodiversity areas, for whom the expansion of these measures was also requested (supra Considering 12). 25. The Court considers that an adequate assessment of the request for expansion of provisional measures implies a differentiated analysis of the five situations presented by the Inter-American Commission. On one hand, the Court observes that the alleged increase in families within the humanitarian and biodiversity zones - whose members are already beneficiaries of the instant provisional measures (supra Considering 12, subparagraph a) – would imply, as requested by the Commission although not clearly, an update to the number of beneficiaries of said measures, and not an expansion thereof. This, with the understanding that the humanitarian and biodiversity zones under consideration are those already included in this matter. In this regard, the Court finds it natural that the number of families in those humanitarian and biodiversity zones has changed over the more than eight years the provisional measures have been in force. In this regard, the Court notes that the number of families currently residing in these humanitarian and biodiversity zones covered by these provisional measures increased from 161 to 214. 26. Similarly, for the reasons indicated in the considering paragraph above, the Court observes that the situation mentioned by the Commission regarding the “[a]rrival of new families” to the humanitarian areas of Pueblo Nuevo, Nueva Esperanza, El Tesoro and Andalucía-Caño Claro (supra Considering 12, subparagraph b), also constitutes an update of the number of beneficiaries and not an expansion of the provisional measures in a strict sense, given that the humanitarian zones in question are already included in the instant matter. Therefore, the Court notes the update in the number of families resident in these humanitarian zones. 27. However, regarding the situation described by the Commission in which 15 families whose members were originally beneficiaries of the provisional measures because they were living in the El Tesoro humanitarian zone and Andalucía-Caño Claro humanitarian zone – included in the instant provisional measures – moved and created the new Camelias-El Tesoro humanitarian zone - currently comprised of 26 families – the Court finds that this is not a mere update of the situation of the original beneficiaries but a formal claim for expansion of the provisional measures (supra Considering 12, subparagraph c). The Commission requested these types of measures for all of the members of the “new” Camelias-El Tesoro humanitarian zone, which comprises other families that are not beneficiaries of the provisional measures. In this regard, in the Order of August 30, 2010 (supra Having Seen 1), in response to a similar request previously submitted by the representatives, the Court highlighted – as previously mentioned – the collective character of the instant provisional measures in addition to a large number of beneficiaries thereof and their different geographic locations. Therefore, in a situation of this nature, the Court found that the provisional measures mechanism requires that the requirements found in the Convention of gravity, urgency, and irreparable nature of the damage be confirmed, as indicated in Article 63(2) of the Convention, with regard to the persons for whom the measures are intended. In this regard, the fact that the humanitarian zone of Camelias-El Tesoro is currently comprised of members that were originally beneficiaries of these measures is not sufficient to automatically award all of its members an expansion of the measures, based on the sole fact of alleged sharing of risk factors with members of the humanitarian and biodiversity areas who are beneficiaries of the protection measures ordered by the Court. Because it is a “new” humanitarian zone, as described by the Commission, and located in a different area than the other zones, as inferred from the maps provided by the Commission, (supra Considering 15), the Court finds that in this specific case, it must be proven that the requirements established in Article 63(2) of the Convention are present. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission based its request for 10