10. Furthermore, from the information provided by the Commission and the State, the Court finds that, based on the precautionary measures adopted by the Commission on September 8, 2003, the State has implemented collective protection measures for the members of the Inter-Church Justice and Peace Commission, directed by Mr. Danilo Rueda (supra Having Seen clauses 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12). Similarly, in a meeting on May 13, 2014, which was attended by Mr. Rueda, the Inter-Church Justice and Peace Commission, the National Protection Unit, and the Foreign Ministry, among others, the State committed to the implementation of a series of individual measures in favor of Mr. Danilo Rueda, in compliance with the Order of the Standing President of May 2, 2014 protection (supra Having Seen clause 9,e; 10; 11,e, f; and 12, d). 11. Taking into account the abovementioned, the State argued that Mr. Danilo Rueda can be protected in the framework of the precautionary measures requested by the Commission, noting that the granting of provisional measures in this particular case would create confusion both in its implementation and monitoring (supra Having Seen clause 9, h, i). On its behalf, the Commission and the representatives argued that the collective measures adopted by the State have been insufficient regarding the high risk faced by Mr. Rueda, noting, inter alia, deficiencies in the collective measures implemented thus far and the increase in threats and harassment experienced by Mr. Rueda in recent months (supra Having Seen clauses 2, c; 3, c; 11, b, c; and 12, a, b, c). 12. The Court has previously found it necessary to clarify that in situations that, prima facie, may result in grave and urgent harm to human rights, an assessment should be made of the problem, the effectiveness of State actions given the context, and the level of exposure faced by those whom the measures are intended to protect if they are not adopted. To achieve this goal it is necessary that the Inter-American Commission present sufficient grounds to cover the aforementioned criteria and that the State be unable to demonstrate clearly and sufficiently the effectiveness of certain measures taken at the domestic level. 16 Also, for the adoption of provisional measures, the Court has taken into account that after a protection scheme is implemented and new threats to the detriment of the intended beneficiaries arise, international protection can play an important role in strengthening the protection provided at a domestic level in cases of extreme risk, handling the matter with special care and attention to the situation faced by the beneficiaries. 17 13. In this regard, the Court finds that the repeated acts of stalking and threats allegedly perpetrated against Mr. Danilo Rueda have materialized in different parts of the country, among others, in the cities of Neiva, Buenaventura, and Bogota (supra Having Seen clause 2 and 11). As is clear from the information provided by the Commission and the State, collective protection measures for all the members of the Inter-Church Justice and Peace Commission have been insufficient to ensure that Mr. Rueda receive the necessary protection to safeguard his life and personal integrity at all times, and particularly during the frequent trips made as a result of his work. This 16 Cf. Matter of de Socio-educational Internment Facility. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2001, considering clause six, and Matter of B. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 29, 2013, considering clause four. 17 Cf. Matter of Álvarez et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, considering clause 99. 16