21. Furthermore, the Court has indicated on previous occasions that: If it is proved that the State in question has implemented mechanisms or actions of protection for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Court may decide to lift the said measures placing the obligation of protection on the entity with primary responsibility; in other words, the State. If the Court lifts the provisional measures for this reason, it corresponds to the State, pursuant to its obligation to guarantee the human rights and also its obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law under Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention, to maintain the measures of protection that it has adopted and that the Court considered pertinent, and to adopt all those that become necessary subsequently, for as long as the circumstances warrant. 33 22. Based on the above, and the consideration concerning the pertinence of a more rigorous examination than the one undertaken to order the adoption of the measures, the Court must examine the information and observations presented by the State, the representation of the beneficiaries, and the Commission. From that perspective, bearing in mind the exceptional and temporary nature of the provisional measures ordered, it must assess whether sufficient evidence exists to consider that the situation of “extreme” gravity and urgency remains as regards risk of “irreparable damage” in relation to the beneficiaries. When making this examination, the Court will assess the existence and application to this case of domestic protection mechanisms, and will not take into account the references to investigative measures (supra considering paragraphs 4, 5, 10, 17, 20 and 21). 23. In the matter that the Court is examining, the background to the situation that gave rise to the provisional measures – which were ordered more than five years and eight months ago – was that, according to the Commission at the time, the information submitted to it indicated that Mr. Meléndez Quijano had “denounced human rights violations presumably committed by the Salvadoran Army” and that, owing to this, he and his family members had been subjected to acts of violence, threats and surveillance. 34 Regarding the persistence of this situation, the Court takes note of the State’s indication that, in its opinion, this situation had now been “resolved,” which is demonstrated by the determination to close the proceedings against Mr. Meléndez Quijano for “acts harmful to military honor” and the promotions to higher military rank (supra considering paragraph 11). However, the Court also notes that Mr. Meléndez Quijano has reported that domestic judicial authorities have recently considered that a “conspiracy” exists against him in the military sphere (supra considering paragraph 17). 24. Furthermore, the Court notes that, during the nearly three and a half years since the Court’s last Order (supra having seen paragraph 1), the representation of the beneficiaries has reported 21 incidents that could eventually constitute attacks, threats, shadowing and harassment 35 (supra considering paragraphs 15 and 16). In addition, the surveillance of Mr. Meléndez Quijano has also been described (supra considering paragraph 17). Of the 21 incidents cited, according to the information provided to the Court, four have taken place 33 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of October 25, 2012, twenty-fifth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó, supra, fifty-fourth considering paragraph. 34 Cf. Matter of Adrián Meléndez Quijano et al. with regard to El Salvador. Order of the Court of November 26, 2007, second having seen paragraph. In that decision, in order to require the adoption of provisional measures, the Court considered that, even though the preventive measures ordered by the Commission were in force, according to the information provided by the latter, “the State had failed to implement the said preventive measures,” and while they were in force, according to the Commission, acts of “surveillance […], telephone threats and shadowing” had occurred (cf. eighth considering paragraph). 35 The Court is not taking into account among these incidents the facts indicated by the representation of the beneficiaries consisting in the notification, on March 22, 2010, of a sentence convicting Mr. Meléndez Quijano, or his mother’s decision to leave the country the next day (supra considering paragraph 15). 12