4 from her work-place. At the public hearing, the representatives informed that as recently as December 2009, a person was assigned to Mr. Adrián Meléndez Quijano for his protection. Also, they informed that “[t]he last intimidating act was carried out on January 24 [2010], [and that] it had not been denounced due to the short notice of time.” This involved the fact that the daughter of Mr. Meléndez Quijano received an anonymous telephone call. The representatives added that the State has not advanced in the investigation of the latest facts of threats and intimidations, which occurred in the year 2009. 10. That likewise, the representatives recognized the agreements established with the State during the month of November 2009 regarding the granting of permanent protection to the family; nevertheless, such actions have been affected by the lack of funds and resources for said program. In this respect, the beneficiary Adrián Meléndez Quijano and his representatives provided, during the public hearing, that the State has implemented some partial measures, which have not been sufficient or efficient and the risk remains latent. The beneficiaries have had to defray the expenses of the logistics of the security personnel. 11. That the representatives indicated that a present risk continued in the case of the representatives of the beneficiaries, for which they requested the continuation of the assignation of security personnel for Mr. Benjamín Cuéllar Martínez and Henry Paúl Fino Solórzano, contrary to that which had been manifested in the previous briefs regarding the possibility of raising the measures. 12. The Commission observed that there has been an advance regarding the coordination between the State and the beneficiaries. Nevertheless, the Commission warned that three years have passed since the adoption of the provisional measures, and the beneficiaries indicated that they do not have sufficient protection. The Commission considered that the situation has been aggravated due to the fact that certain beneficiaries had been subjected to threats and followings during the last few months and that those under age did not receive any protection. Also, the Commission found it imperative that the State continues informing it regarding the investigations derived from the denounced threats. At the public hearing, the Commission manifested that the obligation to adopt necessary measures in order to protect the beneficiaries falls on the State and that it is unacceptable that the beneficiaries have had to cover the costs of the only agent offered of those that were assigned for their protection. Finally, the Commission took note of the advances in the process of implementation of the measures. 13. That the Tribunal finds it timely to reiterate that provisional measures have an exceptional character, and are ordered having regard to the basic need of protection and, once ordered, must be maintained as long as the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by them subsist.4 4 Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, considering third; Case of Integrantes del Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial (ECAP). Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, considering eighteenth and Case of Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of November 16, 2009, considering eighteenth.