4 6. That by ordering provisional measures, this Court has considered indispensable, as a general rule, the individualization of the persons that are in danger of suffering irreparable damages in order to grant them protection measures. However, in several opportunities, it has ordered the protection of a plurality of persons that have not been previously named, but that are identifiable and determinable and that are in a situation of grave danger due to their membership to a group or community. 5 By adopting provisional measures in this sense, the Tribunal does it under objective criteria that will permit the individualization of the beneficiaries at the moment of executing the measures. These criteria amount to, in one side, membership links, and on the other side, to a situation of grave danger common to the members of the group, due to such membership. 7. That while adopting the present provisional measures by request of the InterAmerican Commission, the Court determined that these shall protect a plurality of persons that, although they have not been previously named, they can be identified and individualized, as members of the communities constituted by the Community Council of Jiguamiandó and the families of Curbaradó. According to the information provided by the Commission, at that moment, the beneficiary communities were “integrated by approximately 2,125 persons that constitute 515 families,” established in the “humanitarian refuge zones.” 8. That in the briefs of December 20, 2006, October 1, 2007, January 18 and July 16, 2008 (supra Having Seen 3 and 4), 32 families of the communities of Pueblo Nuevo and Puerto Lleras, of the Jiguamiandó River basin and 199 families that belong to the community of Bocas de Curvaradó, all of them in a situation of forced displacement in the urban area of Curvaradó, Municipality of Carmen del Darién, Department of Chocó, requested before the Tribunal the enforcement of their condition as beneficiaries of the present Provisional Measures in order to get the same guarantees that were granted to other displaced persons represented by the Inter-Ecclesiastical Commission of Justice and Peace. Likewise, they claimed direct dialogue with the State to arrange the measures to their benefit. 9. That the Inter-Ecclesiastical Commission of Justice and Peace pointed out in its observations (supra Having Seen 5) that the concrete scope of application of the present provisional measures is “the perfectly identifia[ble] persons that, due to the internal armed conflict, live in a community that has been denominated “Humanitarian Zones” and also “Biodiversity Zones.” The first of them, “inhabited by persons of the Community Councils […] that are associated as a civilian population in order to inhabit the Territory [,…] loca[ted] in places that are not militarily strategic […] with the purpose of protecting civilians, Afro-descendents and of mixed race of the combatant groups [,…] whom freely assume a life project [and,] an ethical code according to [L]aw 70”. On the other side, the Biodiversity ones “are a proposal of preservation and recuperation of the environment […, that] constitute also a mechanism to ensure the equitable and sustainable access to the resources and socialization of the same as a good of humanity.” In this sense, it pointed out that the beneficiaries of the present measures “have historically been the 161 Afro5 Cf. Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2000, Considering seven; Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering twenty one, and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering seven.