11 facie6; however, maintenance of provisional measures requires a more rigorous evaluation on the part of the Court regarding the persistence of the situation that gave rise to these measures.7 27. In the present matter, the State requested the rescission of provisional measures, arguing inter alia that “there is no real possibility of implementing provisional measures.” 28. The Tribunal notes that if a State requests rescission or modification of mandated provisional measures, it shall present sufficient evidence and arguments that enable the Court to conclude that the risk or threat no longer fulfills the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency in avoiding irreparable harm. In turn, the beneficiaries’ and the Commission’s burdens of proof and persuasion will increase as time passes and no new threats materialize.8 It is also certain that the non-existence of new threats could be owed precisely to the effectiveness of the protection provided or the dissuasion caused by the Court’s Order. The Court has found that the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats or acts of intimidation, together with the lack of an imminent risk, may entail the rescission of provisional measures.9 29. When ordering provisional measures in this case, it was found that the objective of the same was to protect those persons (and their family members) that the then-President of the Court had either required to give sworn written statements (affidavits) or to appear as witnesses in the public hearing before this Court. Consequently, the protection of their lives and right to human treatment via urgent measures was to enable inter alia that they could give their testimony absent any sort of coercion, threats, or reprisals. At that time, such was essentially the aim of these provisional measures. 30. Later, upon ratification of the measures ordered by the President, the Court considered the fact that the persons benefiting from these urgent measures had already given their statements and that some of them had expressed fear in doing 6 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, Considering clause ten; Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering clause fourteen; and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010, Considering clause fourteen. 7 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering clause seven; Matter of A. J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering clause eighteen; and Matter of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”); Capital Region Penitentiary Center Yare I and Yare II (Yare Prison); Penitentiary Center of the Central-Occidental Region (Uribana Prison); and Capital Judicial Confinement Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause four. 8 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering clause eighteen; and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering clause thirty. 9 Cf. Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 11, 2007, Considering clause eleven; Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause fourteen; Matter of Leonel Rivero et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2008, Considering clause fourteen; and Case of Liliana Ortega. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering clause forty.