effect, the Court must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or if there are new equally grave and urgent circumstances that justify the maintenance of these measures.3 5. In the Order of February 6, 2008 (supra Having Seen 1), the Court ruled that in the instant proceedings on provisional measures, it will not assess the effectiveness of the investigations of the facts that led to their adoption, given that this analysis corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case that was being processed before the Inter-American Commission at the time. On April 18, 2010, the Commission filed a petition against the State, pursuant to articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, in connection with the case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina,4 and the Court ruled on this case on August 26, 2011. Regarding this, the parties provided information in their briefs (supra Having Seen 2 to 4) on the investigations into the forced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. Based on the foregoing, the Court reiterates that in the instant Order it will not rule on the investigation of the facts that led to the adoption of these provisional measures. A. Adoption of the measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries (first operative paragraph of the Order of February 6, 2008) and request to lift the measures 6. The Court observes that in the briefs of March 11, September 21, and November 26, 2009; and April 12, 2010 (supra Having Seen 2), the State requested the lifting of these provisional measures given that “no facts have emerged over a long period of time in relation to the instant case that would put the physical integrity or life of the persons that are beneficiaries thereof at risk.” In its subsequent reports, the State did not reiterate this request. 7. In order to maintain the provisional measures, the proven situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons must persist and be directly related to the facts that prompted the adoption of the provisional measures in the instant case. Consequently, when the Court requests information to assess the maintenance of these measures, the information provided must be adequately confirmed and well-founded.5 The Court has also indicated that provisional measures are exceptional and refer to a specific temporary situation, and that due to their nature they cannot continue indefinitely.6 The fact that there are no new threats may in fact be due to the effectiveness of the protection provided or deterrent effect of the Court’s Order. Nevertheless, the Court has found that the passage of a 3 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering 6; Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru, supra footnote 1, Considering 4. 4 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 1. 5 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering 4, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2011, Considering 21. 6 Cf. Matter of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó communities. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, Considering 70, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2011, Considering 21. 4