assessed taking into account the specific context, since it is clear that if fundamental rights such as the right to life and physical integrity are subjected to such a type of threat, an order for provisional measures should be considered7. In this specific case, the threat made against Hernan Antonio Bolivar regarding Marianela Sánchez Ortiz and her family has elements of seriousness that suggests there may exist an irreparable damage to the life and integrity of the possible beneficiaries8. Likewise, the modus operandi of the perpetrators, through the use of weapons and knowledge of information, entails a higher level of risk and denotes urgency. Similarly, the facts described by the Commission evidence prima facie a situation of serious risk to the detriment of the proposed beneficiaries. Therefore, the reasons for which the Court had previously denied provisional measures in favor of Marianela Sanchez Ortiz no longer exist9. Consequently, even though the State’s reasoning is valid regarding the information provided in this request that the mere belonging to a group of human rights defenders of the possible beneficiary is not enough to grant provisional measures, the truth is that what happened to Marianela Sánchez Ortiz is specifically related to the work she does as Legal Coordinator of the Venezuelan Prisons Observatory, an organization that represents the beneficiaries in the matters of certain Venezuelan prisons, and to the activities carried out while documenting the prison crisis during which inmates of "La Planta" prison were relocated to prisons that are subject to this matter. 14. 15. Moreover, the State argued that, after a comprehensive search, it has not found any complaint filed with State authorities regarding the possible situation of risk to Marianela Sánchez or a request for the adoption of protective measures at the Public Prosecutor's Office regarding the threats allegedly suffered between April and June 2012. However, from the documentation presented by the Commission, it shows that Humberto Prado, in his capacity as General Coordinator of the Venezuelan Prisons Observatory, presented the Public Prosecutor's Office with a letter addressed to the Attorney General of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, with date of receipt of June 1, 2012, in which he informed, in detail, the alleged facts that occurred on May 30, 2012 (supra considering paragraph 6(d)), and requested “the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to conduct an immediate, thorough and impartial inquiry into [the] facts”, as well as “to protect the life and physical integrity of Mrs. Sánchez and her family". Therefore the Court notes that even though the facts that occurred, as well as the need to protect the life and physical integrity of Ms. Sanchez and her family, were brought to the attention of the Attorney General, the State has not adopted, to date, any protective measures or actions in their favor. 7 Cf. Matter of Rodeo I and Rodeo II Capital Judicial confinement center. Request for Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, seventieth considering paragraph, and Case of González Medina and next-of-kin. Provisional Measures with regard to the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2011, thirteenth considering paragraph. 8 According to the complaint made: “[…] under death threat, [they] told him to tell [his] wife to stop filing complaints against the people who work for the Government, for the problems that have been taking place in the Prison System; that if he did not want anything to happen to his family, she should stop; that they know where [their] children study and where [his] wife works". 9 Previously, the Court has considered that the representatives had not “presented evidence proving the existence of a prima facie situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding Mrs. Marianela Sánchez” and four more people. Therefore, the Court considers it inadmissible to accept the request for expansion of provisional measures regarding said persons. Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”); Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Prison); Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) and El Rodeo I and El rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center, forty-first considering paragraph. 9