15 so that the[ir] work is duly respected, protected, guaranteed, promoted and cherished by the Venezuelan State". 27. That, after the public hearing, in a brief of October 8, 2009 (supra Having Seen clause 12), the representatives requested the "[e]xpansion of the [...] provisional measures [in favor of] the members of Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones, Marianela Sánchez, María Inés García, Emil Niño, Wilmer Linero [and] Miriam Bolivar”. However, the representatives did not present specific facts of the alleged situation of extreme gravity and urgency in order to avoid irreparable damage to these people. 28. That, as to the request for expansion of the provisional measures, the Commission repeat[ed] its observations made on July 6, 2009 regarding the situation of Mr. Humberto Prado”, concluding that “it had no additional observations to make”. The Commission did not refer to the situation of Mr. Carlos Nieto or the situation of the other members of Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones. 29. That, regarding the request for expansion of provisional measures in favor of Mr. Humberto Prado, the State recalled that on June 8, 2007 “the 36° Investigating Trial Court of Caracas Metropolitan Area ordered [protective measures] [at the national level] in his favor and police officers of the State of Miranda and the Municipality of Libertador were commissioned". Nevertheless, “once such measures were no longer [in force], [said] Investigating Trial Court […] indicated that in order to request the expansion of such measures, it was necessary to comply with the requirements established by the Protection of Victims, Witnesses and other Parties to the Proceedings Act [Ley de Protección de Víctimas, Testigos y demás Sujetos Procesales], including the interview of the petitioner with the Public Prosecutor". According to the State, the “39° Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor’s Office, in order to request the postponement of the Protective Measures, used all the means of brief possible with Mr. Humberto Prado Sifontes, and it was impossible to make him appear before such Office to file a complaint for having been subjected to threats, risk or danger to his physical integrity, liberty, property or substantial violation of his rights; therefore, [according to the State[, Mr. [Humberto Prado] has not used the powers granted under [said] Protection Act [...], preventing in this way the Public Prosecutor's Office from protecting him and guaranteeing his fundamental rights". In this sense, the State concluded that the representatives “cannot pretend to have access to the [Inter-American system] when they have not exhausted the domestic instances, in this case, the [p]rotective [m]easures granted by a Venezuelan court". The State did not refer to the situation of Mr. Carlos Nieto or the situation of the other members of Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones. 30. That, as previously indicated (supra Considering clause 3), for the purposes of the adoption or expansion of provisional measures, the American Convention requires the gravity to be "extreme", that is, the level of seriousness must be intense or high; the risk or threat must be imminent and there must be a reasonable probability that an irreparable damage would cause a detriment to the individual. To such effects, it is necessary to establish the facts that prima facie would seem to meet the requirements established in article 63 of the Convention. Furthermore, in order to determine whether a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in order to avoid irreparable damage to people exist, the Court may assess the set of political, historical or cultural factors or circumstances, or of other nature, that affect the beneficiary or possible beneficiary and place him in a situation of vulnerability in a certain moment, with the possibility of suffering irreparable damage to his rights. This situation may increase or decrease in time on a great number of variables, but only extreme and urgent situations shall call for protection by means of provisional