10 (h) The web page of Aporrea.org, an op-ed site that “has enjoyed broad public support from the national Government” had published “systematically, for seven years, more than 50 articles with serious accusations against COFAVIC and Liliana Ortega.” The last of these appeared on June 23, 2009, in an article entitled “Oposición recurre al mismo formato de golpe. Comparación 2002-2009” [Opposition uses the same coup d’état format. Comparison 2002-2009], which, according to the representatives, criticized “the work of COFAVIC for using the international courts”; (i) The attacks made in articles published on the abovementioned site were aimed at Liliana Ortega personally, indicating that “her NGO has provided her with great [financial] satisfaction”; that “she had made a pact with the devil,” and that “the human rights business had made her rich”; (j) On February 25 and 26, 2009, an alleged leader of the Socialist Party of Venezuela, in his program “La Hojilla”, transmitted by the official channel Venezolana de Televisión, had “incriminated COFAVIC, accusing it of being part of a conspiracy that was trying to break up the civil-military union, merely to ask for justice in the El Caracazo case,” and (k) On February 27, 2009, in a ceremony organized by the National Executive to commemorate El Caracazo transmitted on all the national television channels, a woman shouted out that “Liliana Ortega [COFAVIC] had taken away [her] rights and should be investigated.” 31. That, regarding the opinion articles that the representatives offered as evidence of harassment, the State affirmed that they had been published “in private social media,” such as “the daily paper VEA, the weekly paper Los Papeles de la Mandinga, the weekly paper Verdades de Miguel, and the daily paper El Universal,” and “the representatives [had] indicated that they were attacks by zealous followers of the Government’s policies.” In this regard, the State alleged that “it could not ask or oblige the media not to publish this type of article, because this would amount to prior censorship.” Furthermore, the State indicated that “Liliana Ortega had the right to demand a right of reply in the same media and, if she considered she had been harmed, she could resort to the courts and file the corresponding action so that any possible responsibility for the opinions she had complained about could be determined.” 4.4. Considerations of the Court 32. That, for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, Article 63(2) of the Convention requires the presence of three conditions: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) “urgency” and (iii) that the measures are needed to “avoid irreparable damage” to persons. These three conditions are coexistent and must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Likewise, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection it has ordered. If one of them is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 33. That, when ordering the measures of protection, the Court or the person presiding it, does not, in principle, require evidence of the facts that, prima facie, appear to comply with the requirements of Article 63. To the contrary, maintaining the measures of protection requires the Court to assess whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid