5 an individual cell, located in a high security block, and also offered him measures of protection once placed in conditional liberty. 11. Due to its jurisdiction, in the framework of provisional measures, the Court must consider only those arguments that relate strictly and directly with extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. In this way, to decide if the force of the provisional measures will be maintained, the Tribunal must analyze if the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which determined the adoption of the measures persists, or if new circumstances, equally grave and urgent, merit they be maintened. Any other matter can only be put before the Court through a corresponding contentious case.4 12. The maintenance of the measures of protection requires an evaluation regarding the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency so as to avoid irreparable damages that originate from them,5 based on the information gathered from the evidence.6 From there, the party that requires that the measures continue must present proof of the reasons for it.7 13. The Tribunal ordered the adoption of and maintained the provisional measures in favor of Mr. Arias Alturo due to the threats received for his participation as a witness before the Court, as well as for the investigation of the forced disappearance of the victims of the present case. The beneficiary has been under the protection of the provisional measures for more than fifteen years, and despite this, has expressed that he will not offer information in the mentioned criminal proceeding because he does not feel he can count on the necessary security conditions. 14. The Tribunal has not received concrete or specific information that Mr. Arias Alturo had been the object of any threat or intimidation in the last few years. In this sense, although the representatives mentioned that he had been visited by state agents while deprived of his liberty (supra Considering clause 8), the Court does not have information regarding whether such visits were in fact carried out, who were 4 Cf. Matter of James and others. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering clause six; Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of November 25, 2009, Considering fourth, and Matter of Guerrero Larez, Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 17, 2009, Considering clause sixteen. 5 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering clause seven; Matters of Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica"); Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center; Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 3, Considering clause four, and Matter of A. J. and others. Provisional Measures regarding Haití. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering clause eighteen. 6 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle and others. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause fifteen; Matters of Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica"); Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center; Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison), and Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 3, Considering clause four, and Matter of A. J. and others, supra note 5, Considering clause eighteen. 7 Cf. Case of Carpio and others, supra note 6, Considering clause eighteen.