6 exist a reasonable probability that it will materialize and must not deal with goods or legal interests that can be repaired.6 7. Before a request for provisional measures, the Court cannot consider the merits of any argument that is not one of those strictly related with extreme gravity, urgency and necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Any other matter can only be brought before the Court in a contentious case. 7 * * * 8. The Tribunal reiterates that the procedural burden to demonstrate prima facie the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damages falls upon the applicants that, in the present case, are the representatives.8 9. According to this Court, the alleged declarations of the public employees that would discredit and call into question the work of COFAVIC, could, for example, self-limit the exercise of the work of the defense of human rights. Nevertheless, the determination of this must be analyzed in the framework of the merits of a contentious case. 10. Regarding the allegation that the aforementioned declarations of public employees may cause judicial orders for raids and investigation that would compromise the integrity of the members of COFAVIC, the Tribunal observes that such orders of searching and investigation do not currently exist, but that this is a hypothesis and, therefore, the integrity of the beneficiaries is not currently threatened. In any event, the representatives – beyond their statements – have not accredited the causal nexus between such declarations and the eventual orders for raids and investigation as a consequence of such. 11. For that provided, the Tribunal considers that all the requirements demanded in Article 63(2) of the Convention and Article 27 of the Rules of the Court do not concur, so that the request for provisional measures submitted by the representatives must be declared inadmissible. 12. In addition, the Court finds that the relevant information issued by the representatives for the supervision of compliance with judgment of the Judgment of Reparations and Costs of August 29, 2002, in the Case of Caracazo v. Venezuela will be incorporated into the case file, to be evaluated altogether in the framework of the compliance of that ordered in its Judgment of the present case. 13. Finally, the Tribunal remembers that the States have the constant and permanent duty of complying with the general obligations that correspond to it under Article 1(1) of the Convention, of respecting the rights and liberties recognized in it and to guarantee their free 6 Cf. Matter of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica"), Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitenciary Center, Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) and Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 24, 2009, Considering thirteenth; and Matter of Belfort Istúriz and others, supra Note 2, Considering eighth. 7 Cf. Case of James and Others. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering sixth; Matter of Eloisa Barrios and others, supra Note 5, Considering thirteenth; and Matter of Belfort Istúriz and others, supra Note 2, Considering ninth. 8 fifth. Cf. Matter of Belfort Istúriz and others. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela, supra Note 2, Considering