18 that the State has the obligation to respect the rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction, according to article 1.1 of the American Convention (infra Considering clause 42). B.3) Other representatives 40. That, as to the other members of the Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones, Mrs. Marianela Sánchez, Maria Inés García and Miriam Bolívar and Mr. Emil Niño and Wilmer Linero, the request for expansion of the measures seems to be based, only, on the fact that said persons are members of an organization that defend the rights of people deprived of liberty in Venezuela. 41. That, in this respect, the Court notes that the representatives have not presented any evidence to prove the existence of a situation prima facie of extreme gravity and urgency regarding Mrs. Marianela Sánchez, Maria Inés García and Miriam Bolivar and Mr. Emil Niño and Wilmer Linero. Furthermore, the Tribunal does not find sufficient relevant factors that would allow to reasonably infer that said situation exists. Therefore, the Court considers it is inadmissible to accept the request for expansion of the provisional measures in favor of Mrs. Marianela Sánchez, Maria Inés García and Miriam Bolivar and Mr. Emil Niño and Wilmer Linero. 42. That, without prejudice to the foregoing, it is pertinent to recall the duty of the State to protect and to respect the function served by the non-governmental organizations and other groups or individuals that defend human rights and fundamental freedoms of those deprived of liberty, because these entities constitute a positive and complementary contribution to the efforts made by the State in its role as guarantor of rights of those under its custody13. * * * 43. That, based on the principle of procedural economy, it deems pertinent not only to analyze the information presented in relation to each matter, as a whole (supra Considering clause 10) but also to procedurally join the corresponding processing of the matters and the expansion of the measures in favor of Mr. Humberto Prado after the issuance of this Order. In this sense, the Court takes into account that in each one of the four matters, the Tribunal ordered, inter alia, the State to adopt measures to protect the life and integrity of all the people inside the four penitentiary centers, especially to avoid injuries and violent deaths (supra Having Seen clauses 1 to 14). Therefore, the irreparable damage that the Court intends to avoid with the adoption of these provisional measures is the same in the four matters. Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the beneficiaries of the measures in the four matters are groups of individuals in similar situations due to their condition of inmates, workers or visitors in four Venezuelan penitentiary centers (supra Having Seen clause 1 to 4), whose confinement and protection conditions are governed by a unique system. In addition, the Court notes that the four requests for provisional measures were made by the Inter-American Commission regarding the same State, and even though there are differences as to the legal representation of the different beneficiaries, it is also true that 13 Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), supra note 8, considering clause fourteen; Matter of Lysias Fleury. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003; Considering Clause ten and Matter of Giraldo Cardona. Provisional Measures Regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006; Considering clause nineteen.