22 5. Publication of the Judgment (ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 67. In that regarding the duty to publish in the Official Newspaper both, the section denominated “Proven Facts” as well as the first through third operative paragraphs of the declarative part of the Judgment, the State indicated that on March 1, 2010, it fulfilled the required obligation of publication. 68. The representative confirmed that “[o]n March 1, 2010, the State has complied with the publication in the [O]fficial [N]ewspaper of the [J]udgment in the terms provided by this Court […], [although] after approximately 5 years and 4 months from when it was ordered.” 69. The Commission “consider[ed] that this point of the [J]udgment must be declared fulfilled.” 70. For that provided, the Tribunal observes that the State has offered the documentation that supports the publication of the pertinent parts of the Judgment in the Official Newspaper, the reason for which it declares the total fulfillment of the present obligation. A) Request for Adoption of Provisional Measures 71. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court, in the matters that are before it, may take the provisional measures that it considers pertinent. If dealing with matters that are not yet submitted before the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 72. Effectively, for the adoption of provisional measures, it is required that the gravity be “extreme,” meaning that it is found in its most intense or elevated level. The urgent character implies that the risk or threat involved is immediate. Finally, regarding the harm, there must be a reasonable probability that it materializes and it cannot be based upon goods or legal interests that can be repaired.”32 73. To issue provisional measures, the Tribunal does not require, in principle, proof of the facts that prima facie appear to comply with the requirements of Article 63.33 74. That under international human rights law, provisional measures are not only precautionary, in the sense of preserving a juridical situation; they are also safeguards inasmuch as they protect human rights. When the requisite basic conditions of extreme gravity and urgency are present and when necessary to prevent irreparable harm to 32 Cf. Matters of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Prison), Penitentiary Center of Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering third; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, Considering eighth, and Matter of COFAVIC- Case of Caracazo. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering sixth. 33 Cf. Matter of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering fifteenth; Matters of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary center (Yare Prison), Penitentiary Center of Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 31, Considering fourth, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2010, Considering eleventh.