21 the same institution later confirmed having undertaken at least one of these visits, indicating that it was in order to stay in touch with the beneficiaries’ family members (supra Considering 37, 39). Likewise, the Tribunal notes that the various instances in which the family members have felt harassed or threatened have been related to a complaint, investigation, or interrogation on the part of State authorities regarding the alleged forced disappearance of their relatives. The Court finds that the development of the investigations and the need to require information from the family members for the same do not justify or constitute a sufficient reason for the apparently repeated visits from State authorities to the proposed beneficiaries’ residences, much less from the authorities that these proposed beneficiaries had identified as possibly responsible for the disappearance of their family members. 46. Additionally, the Court notes that several of the proposed beneficiaries had witnessed the alleged arbitrary detentions of their family members supposedly at the hands of military officials (supra Considering 38(a), 38(b)) and had denounced them. Several of these relatives also participated in the search for the beneficiaries during the dates immediately following their alleged disappearance39 because they were later required to do so by alleged military officials (supra Considering 36(b), 36(c)). Although not all the proposed beneficiaries participated actively in the search and denunciation of the beneficiaries’ disappearance, the Tribunal regards the situations described to be of such a nature that they extend to the rest of the family, especially if one considers the fact that all the proposed beneficiaries share a living space with at least one other family member involved in the investigation. The same is true with their respective disappeared family members, from which it is evident that they could all potentially be at risk. The Court also takes note that the State has continually expressed its willingness to reach an agreement with the family members and their representatives regarding the steps necessary to implement protective measures for them. In that regard, the Court observes that in the meeting held with the petitioners on March 10, 2010 the petitioners conducted a series of requests relating to specific protective measures for the family members, to which the State authorities responded that “regarding the requested measures of protection, it [was] report[ed] that they [would] commence with the procedures appropriate to their implementation.” In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the State had reported that it was in the course of delivering cellular telephone units to the proposed beneficiaries in accordance with the family members’ request in the aforementioned meeting (supra Considering 39). 47. The Court recalls that the urgency required for the adoption of provisional measures refers to special and exceptional situations that require and merit immediate actions and responses directed at eliminating the threat. It is a matter of circumstances that by their very nature imply an imminent risk, and from the urgent nature of the threat one derives the nature of the response to remedy it. This must above all suppose an immediate and, in principle, a temporary response to the situation given that the failure to respond would constitute a danger per se.40 Also, in matters such as the present, the extreme gravity of the threat must be assessed according to the specific context because it is evident that if fundamental rights like one’s life or physical integrity are compromised by this type of threat, in principle one is confronted with a situation that merits consideration for the adoption of protective measures.41 In 39 Cf. Case of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 8, Considering clause ten. 40 Cf. Matter of El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Centers, supra note 31, Considering clause eighteen; Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 19, Considering clause ten; and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al, supra note 8, Considering clause nine. 41 Cf. Matter of El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Centers, supra note 31, Considering clause seventeen; Case of Kawas Fernández. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2008, Considering clause six; and Matter of Pérez Torres et al. ("Campo Algodonero"). Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the President of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of April 24, 2009, Considering clause eleven.