25 statement, which had been taken in the presence of civilian authorities at the FEVIMTRA offices. The State concluded that these events were being duly investigated and “[were] not related to the protective measures.” The State also insisted that there has been no presentation of specific facts under which the representatives for whom the expansion of provisional measures is sought have been victims of any act of aggression and/or threat based on the case of the alleged disappearance of the Alvarados. 57. In its October 12, 2010 brief, the Commission added that the facts noted by the representatives as having occurred to the detriment of the representative Emilia Gonzáles Tercero “incorporate[d] greater indications of the irregularity of the visit to her residence [...] which [would] permit a presumption [in favor of] the intent to harass the proposed beneficiary.” The Commission observed that the source of the risk for the representatives and the family members in the present matter derived from their constant efforts in search of the beneficiaries and the internal impetus so that the investigations were conducted in an adequate manner and in accordance with the gravity of the situation; this “implie[d] constant[ly] [filing] complaints [over] indications of military participation in the beneficiaries’ disappearance, which would have given rise to a context of harassment precisely on the part of the military.” In accordance with the Commission’s position, this context is made up of a series of events which, when taken together and under a prima facie assessment standard, would permit inferring the existence of a situation posing a risk to the lives and integrity of those who have been involved in that activity, including the representatives. Lastly, the Commission clarified that Luz Esthela Castro Rodríguez is effectively one of the beneficiaries of precautionary measures MC-147-08, in force since June 13, 2008 in favor of the members of the CEDEHM and the organization “Our Daughters Back Home.” The Commission explained that the facts that gave rise to these measures made reference to a series of threats received by these organizations due to their advocacy efforts in addressing violence against women in Ciudad Juárez; but without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commission considered it appropriate to include Ms. Castro Rodríguez in the present request to extend provisional measure because of the direct link between herself and the Alvarados’ case, as well as her activities representing and counseling Emilia Gonzáles Tercero for the alleged harassment she has received. Ms. Castro Rodríguez is also included due to the fact that those aforementioned precautionary measures “were issued in relation to several of the organizations’ members for threats allegedly linked to other activities.” 58. The Court finds it appropriate to recall that when dealing with provisional measures, the Court must limit its consideration strictly to those arguments that are directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable harm to persons. Any other fact or argument may only be analyzed and resolved during the consideration of the case on the merits.44 In this regard, the adoption of provisional measures does not imply any eventual decision on the merits of the controversy at issue between the petitioners and the State if the case were to finally come before the Court, nor does it prejudge State liability for the subject matter of the complaint.45 44 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, supra note 28, Considering clause six; and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra note 2, Considering clause seven. 45 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 13, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering clause ten; and Matter of the Araguan Correctional Facility “Tocorón Prison,” supra note 2, Considering clause fifteen.