10 To that end, the Court requires that the parties provide the information specifically requested in Considering clauses 16, 21, 23 and 27 of this Order. 30. That the Court shall assess the pertinence of maintaining in force the provisional measures ordered in favor of such individuals upon reception of the information requested and the observations made about such matter. 31. That while the measures ordered by the Court are in force, the State must immediately carry out all the corresponding proceedings so that the protection measures are provided diligently and effectively in order to protect the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries regarding which such measures are provided, i.e.: Helen Mack Chang and the other members of the Myrna Mack Foundation; as well as each one of the relatives of Mrs. Mack Chang, i.e., Zolia Esperanza Chang Lau (mother), Marco Antonio Mack Chang (brother), Freddy Mack Chang (brother), Vivian Mack Chang (sister), Ronald Chang Apuy (cousin), Lucrecia Hernández Mack (daughter) and her children, as well as Messrs. Luis Roberto Romero Rivera and Jorge Guillermo Lemus Alvarado and his relatives. This Tribunal particularly considers that the State must provide information about the alleged facts that occurred against Mr. Ronald Chang Apuy on July 29, 2008 as well as about his present situation and the proceedings carried out about such facts. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the State must inform the beneficiaries about the planning and implementation of these measures (supra Having Seen clauses 2 and 3), in order to provide effective protection in agreement with the real needs of each beneficiary. * * * Regarding Viviana Salvatierra, América Morales Ruiz and Iduvina Hernández, 32. That “the prima facie appreciation standard in a case and the application of assumptions in view of the protection needs have made this Court [...] order measures on various occasions.”3 However, in order to maintain the measures, the situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage must persist as well as a direct relation with the facts giving rise to granting provisional measures in this case;4 therefore, in view of the Court’s requests to evalute whether it would maintain same, such information must be duly accredited and well based. 33. That provisional measures are of an exceptional nature, they are decided according to protection requirements and, once they are ordered, they must be maintained provided the Court considers the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency persist as well as the prevention of irreparable damage to the righs of the individuals protected by them.5 3 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of December 7, 1994, Considering clause 3; Matter of Kawas Fernández. Provisional measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of December 12, 2008, Considering clause 9; and Case of Tyrone Dacosta Cadogan. Provisional measures regarding Barbados. Order of the Court of December 2, 2008, Considering clause 10. 4 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, Considering clause 21; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of August 5, 2008, Considering clause 16; and Matter of Leonel Rivero et al. Provisional measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, Considering clause 13. 5 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional measures regarding Perú. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, Considering clause 3; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional measures regarding