16 measures10. In any event, contrary to what the State mentioned, the American Convention does not provide that provisional measures will be ordered only in those cases where the petitioner exhausted all the domestic remedies available to avoid irreparable damage caused by extremely grave and urgent situations. On the contrary, the mechanism of provisional measures only requires the compliance with the requirements of a situation of gravity, urgency and in order to avoid irreparable damage set forth in article 63 of the Convention (supra Considering clause 4). 31. That, by ordering provisional measures, the Tribunal may also assess the existence of a set of factors or circumstances that reveal serious attacks against a certain group to which the possible beneficiary belongs, which may place him in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency of suffering an irreparable damage. However, the mere belonging to said group would not be, in any case, sufficient to order provisional measures. It is necessary to prove the extreme gravity and urgency by means, for example, of a series of serious attacks against the group to which the potential beneficiary belongs, which would allow, in turn, to reasonably infer that he also could be attacked, even when he has not be directly threatened.11 32. That the representatives have not presented facts to prove prima facie that Mrs. Marianela Sánchez, María Inés García and Miriam Bolivar and Mr. Humberto Prado, Carlos Alberto Nieto Palma, Emil Niño and Wilmer Linero belong to a group that has been subjected to serious threats. Therefore, in view of the fact that, as a group, it has not been proven that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency exists, the Tribunal needs to analyze whether there are particular reasons to order the expansion of these provisional measures, based on the information presented by the parties regarding each one of these persons. B.1) Humberto Prado 33. That regarding Mr. Humberto Prado, due to a request of provisional measures presented by the Commission in the month of May 2007, this Tribunal has been monitoring the situation in relation to alleged threats and intimidating acts committed against him by state officers, as well as in relation to alleged intimidating acts against his life and the life of his family. In said proceeding, the Tribunal has learned that on June 8, 2007, the State ordered the adoption of “protective measures” and appointed the police of the State of Miranda and of the Municipality of Libertador to protect the life and integrity of Mr. Prado Sifontes and his family, at both his domicile and his work (supra Considering clause 29). In relation to said protective measures”, the Court notes that Mr. Humberto Prado Sifontes and his family and the State authorities have to still carry out the appropriate liaisons focused on the possible expansion thereof at the domestic jurisdiction, always in accordance with the requirements established by the Venezuelan law. 34. That, without detriment to the foregoing, the situation put forward by the representatives in the instant matter is of a different nature. Unlike the situation of the request of provisional measures presented in the year 2007 by the Commission, the representatives requested the Tribunal to order the expansion of the provisional measures already ordered regarding the serious prison situation previously described, in order to 10 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle, supra note 3, considering twenty-six; 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 twenty-two; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures Regarding Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering Clause seventy-one. 11 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle, supra note 3, considering clause seventeen and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al, supra note 10, considering clause twenty-three.