Eladio Torres. [They] also categorically den[ied] that Mr. Flores had said that he considered that there was no risk to his life [and] that of his family group.” 27. The State indicated that, “according to the information provided by the Federal Court of Comodoro Rivadavia, [on] November 2012, Guillermo Flores’ deposition was taken in the context of criminal proceedings No. 7020, at which time [he] stated that he had been threatened and assaulted by unknown individuals in public and at his home. [… Therefore,] the intervening judge ordered the implementation of personal and house protection in favor of [Mr.] Flores. However, on November 9, this protection was annulled at the request of [the latter, who] expressly stated that he did not wish to be the object of any measure of protection because he considered that there was no risk to either him or his family group. Despite this, the Court advised him that it had a permanent guard, 24 hours a day, and informed him of the telephone numbers of the Federal Court and those of the acting protection agency, the local delegation of the Argentine Federal Police.” 28. In a brief of December 28, 2012, the Commission recorded that the information forwarded by the representatives prior to the issue of the Court’s Order of December 21, 2012, indicated that, on several occasions, Mr. Flores had been “harassed, followed and ‘provoked’ in public by individuals who he identified as those responsible for what happened to Iván Torres.” Thus, it considered that “the additional information presented by the representatives provides further elements of extreme gravity and urgency, especially taking into account the context of the case in which other persons who say they have relevant information have indicated that they have received threats from the Chubut police.” Subsequently, in its brief of January 23, 2013, and based on the State’s assertions (supra considering paragraph 27), the Commission stressed that “there is disagreement […] between the parties” about the protection measures that the State has allegedly attempted to grant to Mr. Flores. Owing to “the lack of documentary support concerning the measures of protection that have allegedly been offered, as well as the presumed rejection of these by Mr. Flores, the Commission reiterate[d] that the situation of this persons requires special monitoring” by the Court. 29. The Court considers that the information presented reveals, prima facie, that Guillermo Flores has been subjected to recent threats to his personal integrity and life at his home, and also has apparently been harassed by State authorities, presumably owing to the information that he could provide in relation to the enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres and the case of Millacura Llaipén et al. v. Argentina. In addition, irrespective of whether Mr. Flores rejected the State’s protection at a certain moment, the Court observes that he signed the request for expansion of provisional measures that the representatives submitted to the Court and that, currently, he does not have protection. Hence, the Court considers that the incidents described by the representatives reveal a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that justify the expansion of measures of protection in order to avoid irreparable damage to him. Consequently, the State must adopt all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Guillermo Flores and of Alba Rosana Vera González, who lives with him and whose rights could also be affected by the threats to their home. The Court recalls that these measures of protection must be planned with the participation of the beneficiary or his representatives and, also, they must be implemented as soon as possible, so that prompt collaboration between the representatives and of the State in this regard is particularly important (infra considering paragraphs 31 and 32). 30. Despite the above, in order to ensure the adequate supervision of these provisional measures, the Court requests the representatives and the State to present detailed updated information on the situation of risk of Guillermo Flores, describing specific facts, if pertinent, as well as the actions taken to implement the measures ordered in his favor, and providing grounds for the need to maintain or, if appropriate, lift them. 10