20 request to expand provisional measures (supra Considering 36-37), the representatives have referred to certain instances of allegedly inadequate treatment on the part of State agents in charge of the investigations.36 43. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that in order for the Court to order provisional measures three conditions must be present: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”; and iii) the need to “avoid irreparable harm to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in every situation in which the Tribunal’s intervention is requested.37 44. Concerning the present request to expand provisional measures, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to note that, contrary to the State’s contentions in its observations,38 the alleged acts of harassment against the family members and the representatives, submitted to the Court before the adoption of the Court’s May 26, 2010 Order, have not been assessed by the Tribunal due to the fact that the Commission’s request for provisional measures did not name these proposed beneficiaries therein. Therefore, the Tribunal will now consider those facts or situations that may prove relevant for consideration of the request to expand the provisional measures and that may have been noted by the parties in their briefs prior to the adoption of the present measures. The Court takes into account the Commission’s remark in its request to expand provisional measures that the alleged risk in which the proposed beneficiaries find themselves had begun the by time of the first complaints regarding the disappearance were filed (supra Considering 34). 45. The Court observes that the Commission and the representatives have described several specific situations that occurred after the filing of the criminal complaint regarding the alleged disappearance of the present beneficiaries. In those situations, alleged members of the federal police and the army showed up at the proposed beneficiaries’ residences with intimidating demeanors and making a show of force (supra Considering 36(b), 36(c), 37, 37(a)), for which the State offered no explanation at all. In that regard, the Court considers the State’s remark that the ministerial authorities that had had contact with the family members did so “always in strict observance of the rights of the victims [as] contained in the federal constitution,” but the State did not explain the reason for the several visits from these military officials, who the proposed beneficiaries have identified as those allegedly responsible for the disappearance of their relatives from their own residences. The State only indicated that the State authorities, including the Ministry of National Defense (SEDENA), were unaware of the facts complained of in the request (supra Considering 39), even though 36 From the case file on the present provisional measures, the representatives reported, inter alia, regarding a situation that occurred in April 2010 when the FEVIMTRA requested the presence of Obdulia Espinoza, María de Jesús Alvarado, and Jaime Alvarado without notifying any of their legal representatives regarding the formality that was to take place. Despite this, these persons appeared on April 8, 2010 at the FEVIMTRA offices together with their representatives. The representatives indicated that the officials from that prosecutorial office apparently did not want to allow their passage into the offices as well, arguing that the appointment was only with the family members. During this meeting, one of the FEVIMTRA officials made “completely out of place” comments such as when he “repeatedly stomped on the office’s floor and asked [them]: Do you hear how a hole sounds? Do you hear it? ...This house we seized from Amado Carillo (a powerful and well-known drug trafficker in Mexico) and it sounds like that because this place is packed with cellars.” In their May 21, 2010 brief, the State confirmed that the meeting had taken place; however, it did not refer to the representatives remarks on this point. 37 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fourteen; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 3, Considering clause two; and Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility "Tocorón Prison", supra note 2, Considering clause eight. 38 In its observations on the request to expand provisional measures, the State specifically referred only to the facts the Commission mentioned as “recent information” (those facts that were the substance of complaints lodged after April 2010), considering that it was “that [information] that had not been assessed by the Inter-American Court.”