reasonable period of time without threats or intimidation, in addition to the lack of an imminent risk, may lead to the lifting of the provisional measures.7 8. In this regard, the Court highlights that on multiple occasions it asked the parties, and most recently the representatives, to provide updated information on each of the beneficiaries of the instant measures (supra Having Seen 1 and 5). Consequently, in order to assess the implementation of measures and determine the need to maintain them, or to lift them, the Court will analyze the information submitted by the representatives and by the State regarding the current situation of the beneficiaries, as well as their comments and the Commission’s comments in this regard. A.1) Beneficiaries whose situation has not been duly reported to the Court since the Order of February 6, 2008 9. With regard to the beneficiaries Marcela Hernández (“wife of Marcos Torres”), Alberto Hayes, Noelia Hayes, Luis Alberto Fajardo, Silvia de los Santos8 and Verónica Heredia, the Court observes that it does not have information on specific facts that have emerged since the issue of the Order of February 6, 2008, demonstrating that they are in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and risk of irreparable damage to life or personal integrity. In addition, the Tribunal verifies that in response to the Court’s requests for updated information regarding each of the beneficiaries, the representatives did not refer to the situation of the aforementioned individuals (supra Having Seen 5). 10. Regarding the beneficiaries Viviana Hayes, Sonia Hayes, Patricio Oliva and Gerardo Colín, the Court observed that although the representatives referred to them in their response to the Tribunal’s request for updated information (supra Having Seen 5), this brief and those previously presented by the representatives do not mention them, specifically recent ones, to be able to confirm the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency and risk of suffering irreparable damages which prompted the provisional measures ordered in their favor.9 The same is inferred from the briefs presented by the Commission. 11. In view of the lack of elements that would allow the Court to assess the situation of these individuals, and given that almost four years have elapsed since the last Order issued by the Court in the instant case, and given that the representatives 7 Cf. Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico.Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 11, 2007, Considering 11, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2011, Considering 21. 8 Ms. Silvia de los Santos is no longer the representative of the beneficiaries of the instant provisional measures. Cf. Representatives’ briefs of February 18 and April 7, 2011 (case file on monitoring of compliance, volume xiii, pages 4909 y 4967). 9 Since the issue of the Order of February 6, 2008 (supra Having Seen 1), the parties have not recorded any specific facts to the detriment of Mr. Gerardo Colín, generally claiming that he “frequently suffer[s] police harassment.” In addition, the only incident against the Hayes family allegedly occurred in June 2009, when Ms. Sonia de Hayes found that the door to her house had been forced. One cannot infer from the information provided by the representatives that this incident was related to the investigations being carried out regarding the forced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. It also cannot be inferred from the information provided that the sole specific incident that occurred to the detriment of Mr. Patricio Oliva, which took place in 2009, was related to these investigations. The representatives claim that at that time, two policemen “from Chubut Province [went] to [Mr. Oliva’s] house and repeatedly and aggressively threatened him, warning that “he should take care of himself.” 5