7 9. That the Court perceives and weighs, for the purpose of adopting the instant Order, that the State has not responded to the precautionary measures ordered by the InterAmerican Commission in its brief dated April 17, 2009, nor to those it ordered once more on June 30, 2009 (supra Having Seen Clause Number 2. a). The lack of response by the State has extended up to the present time, for neither did it forward the information requested by the President of the Court in her Order dated August 24, 2009. Such conduct by the State allows assuming that such measures have not had their intended effect and that the risk situation which gave rise to them persists. The Inter-American Court highlights that it is imperative for the State to answer and furnish information when the bodies in the InterAmerican System require it, so that the regional protection mechanism may work in an effective manner. 10. That the standard of prima facie assessment in a case and of applying presumptions when faced with the need for protection have led the Court to order provisional measures on various occasions.4 11. That the persons mentioned by the Inter-American Commission in its request for provisional measures and in the Order by the President would be, prima facie, in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, for their lives and personal integrity would be threatened and in serious risk. Consequently, the Inter-American Court deems it necessary to protect such persons, by means of provisional measures under the provisions in the American Convention. 12. That, as the Tribunal has pointed out before, the State has the specific duty to protect the persons working for non-governmental organizations, as well as other groups or individuals working in the defense of human rights, since the work they carry out is a positive contribution complementing the efforts by the State in its capacity as the guarantor of the rights of the persons under its jurisdiction5. 13. That the State is bound to take all pertaining action so that the protection measures provided in the instant Order be planned with the beneficiaries thereof or their representatives taking part in such process, for the purpose of affording them the aforementioned measures in a diligent and effective way. 14. That the Tribunal deems fit to remind that, when provisional measures are the matter, it befalls the Court to consider only and strictly those arguments directly related to the extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. All other fact or argument may only be considered and determined by the Court when it is considering a disputed case on the merits6. 4 Cf. inter alia, Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica"). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated January 13, 2006 , Considering Clause Number Sixteen; Matter of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 1, Considering Clause Number Fourteen; and Case of Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated January 26, 2009, Considering Clause Number Thirty-Two. 5 6 Matter of Fernández Ortega et al.; supra note 1, Considering Clause Number Sixteen. Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights dated August 29, 1998, Considering Clause Number Six; Matter of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 1, Considering Clause Number Eighteen; and Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated January 26, 2009, Considering Clause Number Twenty-Two.