15 30. The present request to expand provisional measures is not related to any matter in contentious case proceedings before the Court, but rather originated in a request for precautionary measures before the Inter-American Commission. This Tribunal does not have information concerning whether the facts considered by the Commission might become part of a contentious case in the Inter-American System in the future or whether a petition on the merits related to this case might have been lodged before the Inter-American Commission. 31. In earlier opportunities, the Court interpreted the phrase “a case not yet submitted to the Court” contained in Article 63(2) in fine of the American Convention to suppose that there was at least the possibility that the matter giving rise to the request for provisional measures could be submitted to the Tribunal’s contentious jurisdiction. In order for this slight possibility to exist, the procedure provided in Articles 44, 46, 47, and 48 of the American Convention must have been commenced before the Commission.30 32. The Court has found it necessary to clarify that in view of the protective character of provisional measures (supra Considering 5), it is possible under exceptional circumstances that the Court may order provisional measures even where no contentious case exists in the Inter-American System. These situations would be those that prima facie could result in a serious and urgent impact on one’s human rights.31 For that purpose, there must be an assessment of the problem presented, the effectiveness of State actions in the face of the situation described, and the degree of vulnerability that the persons for whom the measures are requested would find themselves were the measures not to be adopted. To achieve this objective, the InterAmerican Commission must submit a motion that addresses these criteria, and the State must not be able to clearly and sufficiently demonstrate the effectiveness of the measures it has adopted domestically.32 33. On September 3, 2010, the Inter-American Commission requested an extension of the present provisional measures in favor of certain family members and representatives of the beneficiaries,33 arguing that “different events [...] taken together 30 Cf. Matter of García Uribe et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering clauses three and four; Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 19, Considering clause six; and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 8, Considering clause seven. 31 Cf. Matter of the El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Centers. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering clause nine; Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 19, Considering clause eight; and Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility "Tocorón Prison", supra note 2, Considering clause seven. 32 Cf. Matter of the El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Centers, supra note 31, Considering clause nine; Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 19, Considering clause eight; and Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility "Tocorón Prison", supra note 2, Considering clause seven. 33 In its initial request, the Commission requested the expansion of provisional measures in favor of the following 11 family members of the beneficiaries: José Ángel Alvarado Favela, Obdulia Espinoza, Jaime Alvarado Herrera, Manuel Alvarado Herrera, Patricia Reyes Rueda, María de Jesús Alvarado Espinoza, Mitzi Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Daisy Alvarado Espinoza, Michelle Urrutia Alvarado, Johana Alvarado Espinoza, and José Ángel Alvarado Espinoza. Later, in its response to the President of the Court’s request for additional information (supra Having Seen 9), the Commission extended its initial request, asking for the expansion of provisional measures in favor of 24 family members by virtue of having added the following persons: Alan Alvarado Reyes, Adrián Alvarado Reyes, Manuel Reyes, Angélica Alvarado Espinoza, Concepción Herrera Hernández, Rosa Olivia Alvarado Herrera, Karina Paola Alvarado Alvarado, Fabián Alvarado Herrera, Feliz García, Nitza Citlali Alvarado Espinoza, Rigoberto Ambriz Marrufo, María de Jesús Espinoza Peinado, and Ascensión Alvarado Favela. The Commission argued that “it [wa]s possible to infer a risk to [the] lives and right to humane treatment” of the nine family members for whom the expansion was requested based on information available at that moment and due to either their kinship or their efforts at searching for the beneficiaries.