State on the execution of a friendly settlement agreement that has apparently been reached in the proceedings on the petition before the Commission. 32. In relation to the requirement of “gravity” for the adoption of provisional measures, the Convention calls for this to be “extreme”; in other words, that it is to its most intense and severe degree. 13 As for the requirement concerning the “urgency” of the situation that is the subject of the request for provisional measures, this implies that the danger or threat involved is imminent, which requires that the response to remedy them be immediate. When analyzing this aspect, the opportuneness and the duration of the requested precautionary or protective measures must be assessed. 14 33. In this matter, in addition to requesting protection for four individuals, the InterAmerican Commission asked the Court to order the protection of those deprived of liberty in the San Felipe and Boulogne Sur Mer Units (supra seventh having seen paragraph); thus the potential beneficiaries are identifiable, because they are individuals imprisoned in the said detention centers, or who may enter them in the future as inmates, or who enter them, regularly or eventually, either as officials or as visitors.15 34. In this matter, the gravity arises from the documentary and audiovisual elements provided, which consist of videos and photographs from a mobile telephone allegedly owned by a prison agent, as well as from the testimony of those deprived of liberty and of public officials (supra fifth considering paragraph), which reveal prima facie the existence of violent acts perpetrated against inmates of the San Felipe Prison Unit by members of the prison staff, which could even be classified as acts of torture. In addition, further elements may reveal other types of undue and violent conduct among members of the prison staff and towards those deprived of liberty for whom they are responsible. These acts allegedly took place while the provisional measures were in force, although the Commission and the Court were not advised of them, because the alleged acts had not yet been revealed, which is, in turn, evidence of a lack of internal monitoring by the State of the actions of the prison staff, actions that should be monitored by the State in its capacity as guarantor in prisons and detention centers. 35. According to the arguments and information provided by the Commission and the representatives, while the provisional measures in this matter were in force numerous tense and violent situations arose in the relations between inmates and prison staff. 16 In 12 Cf. Matter of the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, seventh to ninth considering paragraphs; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison, Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, fourth considering paragraph. 13 Cf. Matter of Four Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and their Members. Provisional measures with regard to Panama. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, eighth considering paragraph. 14 Cf. Matter of Four Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and their Members, supra note 15, ninth considering paragraph. 15 Cf. Matter of the Aragua Penitentiary Center "Tocorón Prison." Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, thirteenth considering paragraph. 16 Cf., Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra note 3, eighth considering paragraph. 15