10 12. In this regard, the Court considers that the responses and information presented by the State challenge to a high degree certain elements of the initial request presented by the Commission. Also, the Commission, by not presenting arguments relating to certain claims of the State, fails to demonstrate prima facie the situation of extreme gravity and urgency of preventing irreparable damage. 13. In addition, specific aspects claimed by the Commission and challenged by the State, such as the validity of the agreements signed, the restrictions on freedom of movement and the extent of the resettlements, seem to refer to the merits of the case. On this point, the lack of claims by the Commission inhibits distinguishing between what is strictly precautionary and that to be decided on the merits of the claim. In this regard, the Court calls to mind that in a request for adoption of provisional measures it cannot consider any argument that is not strictly related with the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damages to individuals. Any other issue should be resolved within the respective contentious case.9 * * * 14. In relation to the community of Guayabal, the Court observes that this community is recognized in the various appendixes and reports presented by the State. In fact, in its report of March 15, 2010, the State indicated that “there are a total of 10 families pending final agreements” among which it mentioned 8 families from the “region of Guayabal.” The Court verifies that the State even reported on certain relocation processes regarding the individuals living in that community. The State also included the community of Guayabal in the Executive Decree bill submitted on April 30, 2010, in relation to the communities that would receive collective lands. 15. However, the Commission did not present specific observations on the State’s claims that the inhabitants of Guayabal are part of the community of Valle de Risco. In this regard, the Court observes that the community of Valle de Risco is not part of the four communities included in the request for provisional measures presented by the Commission. The Court also notes that the Commission, considering what the State indicated, did not indicate whether the representation of the community of Guayabal is related to the representation of the community of Valle de Risco, which is mentioned in a report issued by the Office for Civil Rights as one of the communities that participates in the negotiation. While testimonies have been presented as well as a press release issued by the “members of the community” indicating their disagreement with the agreements reached by the Government, the company and certain communities, there is also no clear information on the uses and customs of representation, leadership, and decision-making within this community. Therefore, regarding this community, the Commission is unable to show prima facie the situation of extreme gravity and urgency of avoiding irreparable damage. * * 9 * 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 six; Matter of Belfort Istúriz et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 15, 2010, Considering nive, and Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering three.