6 the alleged visitors, nor have arguments been provided that would permit the Court to be assess the risk or threat of those visits. On the other hand, regarding the alleged assassination of the brother of Mr. Arias Alturo, referred to by the representatives at the public hearing (supra Considering 8), the Court points out that minimum and concrete information regarding this fact was not provided nor were arguments raised about the eventual connection of said death with the alleged situation of extreme gravity and urgency of the beneficiary or with the object of the present measures. Based upon the aforementioned, no basis exists which permits the Tribunal to suppose that a situation of risk or threat to the life or personal integrity of Mr. Arias Alturo exists. 15. Additionally, in accordance with what was presented by the State at the public hearing, Mr. Arias Alturo had expressly renounced the measures of protection offered at the beginning of his conditional liberty (supra Considering 7). In this respect, neither the representatives nor the Inter-American Commission presented arguments or information that could contradict that informed by the State. 16. Finally, in accordance with the information presented by Colombia, the whereabouts of Mr. Arias Alturo are unknown. For its part, the representatives provided that “they also did not ha[ve] contact with [said beneficiary].” In this respect, the Court reminds that the useful effect of the provisional measures depends, in a great deal, on the real possibility that the measures be implemented.8 In the present case, the beneficiary has voluntarily rejected the possibility to be located and protected by the State through the provisional measures. 17. Given the aforementioned, the Inter-American Court considers that the elements that motivated the adoption of the provisional measures in favor of said beneficiary do not subsist and concludes that it is not possible to allow for the continuance of the provisional measures granted in his favor. 2) Regarding the beneficiary María Nodelia Parra 18. The State informed that Ms. María Nodelia Parra (hereinafter “Ms. Parra”) continues relying upon the measures of protection ordered and specified its security scheme. The State informed that on December 11, 2009, the Technical Committee of the Office of Special Protection of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) analyzed the study of the level of risk and degree of threat to the beneficiary, and concluded that her level of risk was ordinary. Also, the study of the level of risk of April 24, 2009, as well as the reports of the Third Prosecutor’s Office of the National Unit of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law and of the Technical Body of Investigation of Bucaramanga affirmed that no new facts exist that affirm a risk to the life or physical integrity of Ms. Parra. 19. Regarding the alleged illegal activities of intelligence carried out by DAS, Colombia informed that the request for financial information regarding the beneficiary is dated May 21, 2004, meaning, six years have passed, a period of time in which Ms. Parra has repeatedly stated to the authorities that facts had not been 8 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause thirteen.