26 59. The Tribunal observes that the representatives argued for the existence of an environment of violence, impunity, and discrimination in the State of Chihuahua as one of the constitutive elements of the alleged risk they face (supra Considering 50(c), 50(d), 55), and the State did not deny the existence of the same, but rather argued that this information was imprecise due to the failure to present concrete facts demonstrating the specific risk the representatives encounter. 60. In this regard, the Court recalls that in order to determine whether a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in avoiding irreparable harm exists, it may assess the sum total of political, historical, cultural, or any other sort of factors affecting the beneficiary that would place him or her in a vulnerable situation at any point in time, exposing his or her rights to possible infringement. This situation may grow or diminish in time depending on innumerable variables, but as was noted, only extreme and urgent situations shall be deserving of protection by way of provisional measures. 61. On the one hand, there may be a nexus of factors or circumstances showing serious aggressions against a group of persons in particular that situate these persons in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in suffering irreparable damages. In this extreme situation, for instance, a series of serious attacks against the group to which the beneficiary belongs reasonably showing that the beneficiary could also be attacked could serve to justify the granting of provisional measures even without a direct threat to the beneficiary. The assessment of the existence of this factual nexus is distinct from the assessment that occurs in a decision on the merits, wherein the attribution of the State’s international liability for carrying out or tolerating such conduct is at issue. The procedure for provisional measures is only aimed at verifying whether risk exists in a particular moment and this procedure does not consist in prejudging the case or the merits of any issue. 62. On the other hand, a situation not of the above-described character (supra Considering 61) may exist, and by itself it many not represent extreme gravity and urgency in suffering irreparable harm for a particular group. In such a case, that situation would only serve to assess any concrete threat that may have presented itself against the beneficiary and not to justify in itself the concession or maintenance of provisional measures.46 63. In the present matter, the Court finds that the information proffered does not permit the conclusion that the alleged context of violence and impunity constitutes a situation such as that described in Considering clause 61. Consequently, the alleged context does not justify per se the granting of provisional measures in favor of the representatives; that is, such a context is not a sufficient basis upon which to expand provisional measures in the absence of concrete facts that would permit conclusions consistent with the alluded-to effects of this context in the matter at issue. 64. In that regard, the Tribunal notes that the concrete factual elements referred to regarding the representatives (supra Considering 50), with the exception of those addressing the situation of Emilia Gonzáles Tercero (supra Considering 54), do not appear to constitute, prima facie, effects of the alleged environment of violence, discrimination, and intimidation against human rights defenders in the specific matter at issue. Additionally, from the information submitted to the Tribunal, the relationship between the aforementioned larceny of electronic appliances from the CEDEHM headquarters and the organization’s representation of the beneficiaries and family 46 Cf. Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering clause nineteen; Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering clause twenty-three; and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering clause twentyfour.