-6leaders and asked the Court to give careful consideration to this information. In its brief of August 23, 2013, the Commission indicated that, owing to the discrepancy between the parties in relation to the description of the events, it was important that the Court continue monitoring the situation of the Saramaka leaders. 13. The Court observes that the request for provisional measures is related to supposed acts of intimidation against the leaders of the Saramaka People, owing to the designation of their representatives for the implementation of the Judgment delivered by the Court in this case. In application of the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention and 27(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court must define whether the requirements of extreme gravity, urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons are met (supra considering paragraph 5). 14. In this matter, the allegations presented to the Court that the Saramaka leaders have been subjected to pressure to revoke their legal representation under the threat of the termination of their salaries do not reveal a situation of extreme gravity that objectively involves the right to life or to personal integrity of the Saramaka leaders or their representatives. As for the requirement of urgency, the evidence provided to the Court does not reveal a situation of extreme urgency. The Court also considers that the requirement of the irreparability of the damage has not been proved, in relation to the protection, because the supposed risk of a suspension of their salaries is not sufficient to justify the adoption of provisional measures by the Court. Furthermore, the alleged situation of risk to their personal integrity indicated by some Saramaka leaders in their affidavits is not substantiated by the content of their statements or by the description of the alleged acts of intimidation by State officials and another Saramaka leader, particularly as regards how this risk could materialize. 15. Therefore, the Court considers that, in this matter, the three requirements of extreme gravity, urgency and irreparability of damage to life or personal integrity that would justify the adoption of provisional measures have not been substantiated by the presumed acts of intimidation against the Saramaka leaders and their representatives. 16. Thus, the Court reiterates to the State that, pursuant to Article 53 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, “States may not institute proceedings against witnesses, expert witnesses, or alleged victims, or their representatives or legal advisers, or exert pressure on them or on their families on account of statements, opinions, or legal defense presented to the Court.” 17. In addition, the Court reiterates that the State has the constant and permanent duty to comply with its general obligations under Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, in any circumstance. 9 Consequently, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State has the special obligation to ensure the rights of individuals in a situation of risk. 10 Moreover, the Inter-American Court emphasizes the particular obligation of protection of States with regard to those whose work involves the defense of human rights. 11 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, third considering paragraph, and Case of Ávila Moreno et al. (Case of Operation Genesis), supra, twenty-third considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra, third considering paragraph, and Matter of Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, one hundred and fourth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. Case of the Monagas Detention Center (“La Pica”). Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 20, 2012, thirty-first considering paragraph.