7. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that in order for the Court to grant provisional measures, three factors must take place: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency,” and iii) the need to “avoid causing irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions must be present together and in every situation where the Court’s intervention is requested.9 8. In terms of gravity, for purposes of the adoption of provisional measures, the Convention requires that it be “extreme,” that is, that it be at its most intense or highest level. The urgent nature implies that the risk or threat involved is imminent, which requires that the remedial response be immediate. Lastly, regarding harm, there must be a reasonable probability that the harm materialize and it should not affect goods or legal interests that can be repairable.10 9. In this request for provisional measures the Court must determine whether these requirements have been met and consider only the procedural obligations of the State as part of the American Convention. By contrast, as noted in its jurisprudence, when a request for provisional measures is made, the Court cannot consider the merits of any arguments other than those that are strictly related to the extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable harm to persons. Any other matters can only be presented before the Court in a contentious case. 11 10. From the information provided by the Commission, it is evident that the events that have taken place at the Curado complex (supra Having seen clause 7 demonstrates prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and possible irreparable damage to the rights to life and integrity of the inmates at the prison, as well as to the staff and other persons who enter the prison. In particular, the extreme intensity of the risk is evident from the information provided which indicates that there have been many acts of violence, such as riots, assaults between inmates and by guards against inmates, death threats, murders, which have even been recognized by the State, alleged torture and mistreatment, communicable diseases and a lack of adequate medical care, both prior to the precautionary measures rendered by the Commission, as well as throughout 2013, and even throughout the early months of 2014 (supra Having seen clauses 7 and 10). Furthermore, stemming from the evidence provided by the parties, the Court notes that the overcrowding in the Curado Complex persists, despite the construction of a new cell block and the efforts made to move hundreds of inmates who should no longer be housed in that establishment. 9 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause 14, and Matter of Danilo Rueda regarding Colombia. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 02, 2014, Considering clause 20. 10 Cf. Matters of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), Yare I and Yare II Capital 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 regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause 3, and Matter of two girls of the Taromenane indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation regarding Ecuador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 31, 2014, Considering clause 7. 11 Cf. Matter of James et al.. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering clause 6, and Matter of Danilo Rueda regarding Colombia. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 02, 2014, Considering clause 12. 9