that gave rise to these measures consist in the fact that Mr. Guerrero Larez, who was deprived of liberty in the Venezuelan General Penitentiary, has been disappeared since September 7, 2009, the date on which a family member spoke to him by telephone for the last time. That same day, another family member received a telephone call advising that Mr. Guerrero Larez had been deprived of his life in the Penitentiary. When ordering the State to adopt measures, it was also noted that the next of kin and their representatives had denounced the fact to different State authorities, including: (a) the National Prison Services Directorate; (b) the Minister of People’s Power for Interior Relations and Justice; (c) the Sixth Criminal Trial Judge of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas; (d) the Prosecutor General; (e) the Director for Fundamental Rights of the Public Prosecution Service; (f) Regional Command No. 2 – Unit No. 28 – Second Company of the National Guard in San Juan de los Morros, and (g) the Office of the Ombudsman. Some of these authorities even came to the Penitentiary, met with the prison authorities, and reported on the uncertainty of what had happened to Mr. Guerrero Larez. Also, in view of the State’s failure to respond to the urgent request for information sent by the InterAmerican Commission, this Court considered that the said request had not produced the intended effect and that the situation of risk that had justified it persisted. Consequently, the Court considered that its intervention in this matter in order to avert the danger could not be delayed. 6. Subsequently, the Court recalled that whenever there are convincing reasons to suspect that a person has been subjected to disappearance, the prompt and immediate action of the judicial and prosecution authorities is essential, ordering opportune and necessary measures aimed at determining the whereabouts of the victim or the place where he may be deprived of liberty. 6 Also, it emphasized that, in situations of deprivation of liberty such as those of this case, among the essential judicial guarantees, habeas corpus represented the appropriate means to determine the situation and whereabouts of Mr. Guerrero Larez, as well as to ensure respect for his life and to protect his personal integrity. 7 7. In view of the fact that three year and nine months have elapsed since the adoption of the provisional measures in favor of the beneficiary, and based on the nature of the events that gave rise to their adoption, the Court finds it opportune to examine the status of the implementation of these measures in order to decide whether it is necessary to maintain them in force. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that, owing to its competence, in the context of provisional measures the Court must only consider arguments that are strictly and directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 8. Considering, also, that in this matter there is no related individual petition being processed before the Commission, as the Commission has advised (supra having seen paragraphs 6 and 10), the Court must ensure that the provisional measures are not distorted in the sense that they are being used to obtain what should be achieved by means of a contentious case. 8 Therefore, the only admissible analysis is limited to the protective nature of these provisional measures, insofar as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 9 6 Cf. Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 20101, eighth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Matter of Guerrero Larez, supra note 6, eighth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Guerrero Gallucci. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2011, twenty-ninth considering paragraph. 9 Cf. Case of the “La Nación” newspaper. Provisional measures with regard to Costa Rica. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of the Barrios Family, supra note 1, second considering paragraph. 4