provided by the State have not been effective in protecting Mr. Danilo Rueda, who faces a higher risk level that requires the adoption of individual protection measures given the assessment of his particular situation. The Commission also referred to the alleged lack of specific results from the investigations into the alleged attacks and stalking Mr. Danilo Rueda has experienced (supra Having Seen clauses 2 and 12). 7. The representatives agreed with the assertions of the Commission and reported on the measures of protection agreed upon for Mr. Danilo Rueda during the meeting held on May 13, 2014, as well as the requests submitted to the State on the same occasion (supra Having Seen clause 11). On its behalf, the State reported on the collective protection schemes that have been implemented in favor of the members of the Inter-Church Justice and Peace Commission and highlighted the investigations carried out and the measures to be implemented in order to guarantee the right of human rights defenders to exercise their work (supra Having Seen clauses 7 and 9). Moreover, it reported on the measures agreed upon with the representatives in the meeting of May 13, 2014 (supra Having Seen clause 10). 8. In this regard, the Court considers that the analysis of the facts and arguments of the Commission related to the alleged risk to human rights defenders in Colombia, as well as the alleged lack of specific results from the investigations related to alleged attacks against Mr. Danilo Rueda, pertains to considerations that must be made within the context of a possible contentious case in the event that there is one. The Court has already held that a ruling on the merits must be made in a judgment within the process of a contentious case before the Court and not within the processing of provisional measures. 15 Accordingly, the aforementioned arguments will not be taken into account. 9. The Court notes that, according to information provided by the Commission, it appears that Mr. Danilo Rueda had been monitored, stalked, harassed and received threats against his life and personal integrity since 2002 and, between January and April 2014, there have been at least three warnings or threats against his life or physical integrity, seven incidents in which there is evidence that he had been followed or monitored, and an incident in which he was assaulted by a person allegedly belonging to an armed group (supra Having Seen clause 2). The Court considers the event that occurred on April 24, 2014 of extreme risk, which involved pellets shot at Mr. Danilo Rueda’s home and where part of his family works, impacting the security window panes (supra Having Seen clause 2). Moreover, the Court highlights that the representatives of the beneficiary reported that in the months of April and May of this year, Mr. Danilo Rueda had suffered threats to his life and been victim to harassment and stalking, “an attack against his integrity” with a knife by an alleged paramilitary, and an attack at his home, and that said acts “demonstrate the existence of a coordinated plan against the life” of Mr. Danilo Rueda (supra Having Seen clause 11, a). Given the abovementioned, the Court considers, prima facie, that Mr. Danilo Rueda faces a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, since his life and personal integrity are threatened and at risk. 15 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, considering clause six, and Matter of Martínez Martínez et al. Provisional Measures regarding México. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2012, considering clause eight. 15