achieved with the application of this System has resulted in it being applied to human rights defenders at risk, and since it came into effect it has been implemented on [thirteen] occasions [;] [four] with human rights defenders, in all cases guaranteeing the life and physical integrity of the beneficiary”, and b) the Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists. This mechanism, operated by the Secretariat of Government since October 25, 2012, may be accessed through the following channels: i. ii. an extraordinary procedure, which requires a request from the potential beneficiaries, in response to which urgent measures of protection must be implemented within a period no longer than nine hours, including the following: evacuation, temporary relocation, escorts by specialized security units, protection of premises, etc., and a regular procedure, which may commence after the extraordinary procedure, or when the application for inclusion in the scheme advises that no imminent risk exists. In this case, within ten calendar days, the Risk Assessment Unit must conduct an evaluation of the situation, determine the level of risk that exists, define the measures of protection required and determine the beneficiaries. 12. The considerations of the State regarding its compliance with the requirements established in Article 63(2) of the Convention, namely: a) the facts that prompted the precautionary measures decreed by the Commission date from 2008 and since that time the competent authorities have not received any communication from the petitioner. The State added that the Court has stated that it is essential that the facts are reported at the domestic level; b) an urgent situation implies that the risk or threat is imminent. If that risk or threat were imminent, the petitioner would have responded to the search procedures carried out in the aforementioned investigations; c) as to the damage, it considered that there must be a reasonable probability of this materializing, something that has not been demonstrated in this case; d) “despite Mrs. Luz Estela Castro’s possible dissatisfaction with the measures implemented by the Mexican State, until now these have been sufficient to accomplish the protective purpose of a measure of protection, which is strictly to ‘avoid irreparable damage to persons’”, and e) as to the statements made by senior officials, it cited the Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. regarding Venezuela to argue that “this probable type of harassment does not have the nature of a threat, either direct or indirect, against life and personal integrity.” 13. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of January 16, 2013, in which, following the instructions of the President and pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission was asked to submit its observations to the report presented by the State . 7