specific measures which have been adopted within the domestic jurisdiction.4 7. According to Article 63(2) of the Convention, three conditions must be met in order for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, namely: (i) “extreme gravity”; (ii) "urgency” and (iii) when necessary to avoid “irreparable damage to people”. These three conditions must coexist and be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested.5 8. Regarding the importance for the adoption of provisional measures, the Convention requires that the case must involve “extreme” gravity, that is, the most intense or highest level of gravity. The urgency implies that the risk or threat must be imminent, which also assumes that the response to remedy it must be immediate. Finally, with regard to damage, there must exist a reasonable probability that damage will occur and this may not refer to legal assets or interests that may be reparable.6 9. In a request for provisional measures, the Court cannot consider the merits of any arguments pertaining to issues other than those that relate strictly to the extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons. All other issues may be brought to the Court’s attention solely through the procedure for contentious cases.7 10. From the information provided by the Commission, it follows that the events which occurred at CEPRA (supra having seen paragraph 2), prima facie prove a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to the rights to life and personal integrity of the inmates at this prison, as well as of any other person who enters there. In particular, the extreme gravity and intensity of the situation of risk derives from the information provided which indicates that, in the course of this year, between the months of January and June, 34 inmates and 1 officer of the National Guard have died and approximately 33 inmates and 5 officers have been injured as a result of the different violent acts inside CEPRA (supra having seen paragraphs 2(d)(i) and 2(d)(vii)). Furthermore, on June 22, 2012, a conflict arose at CEPRA, which resulted in at least 28 dead inmates, 16 of which were identified, as well as at least 8 inmates, and 6 security officers who were injured (supra having seen paragraphs 2(d)(viii) and 4 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, ninth considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, eleventh considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen; twenty-second considering paragraph. 6 Cf. 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. Provisional Measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, third considering paragraph, and Matter of Martinez Martinez et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2012, sixth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of Martinez Martinez et al., seventh considering paragraph. 7