Tribunal’s request for updated information on this beneficiary and her family (supra Having Seen 5), the representatives did not mention the current risk situation of those persons.14 15. The Commission indicated that “based on the information provided as part of the instant measures, it can be inferred that María Millacura [Llaipén had...] recently been subjected to threats and harassments, without the State presenting sufficient information on her protection.” It also indicated that, “as Ms. María Millacura [Llaipén] and her representative emphasized at the public hearing held on May 18, 2011, within the framework of the case [Torres Millacura et al v. Argentina], the family of [this beneficiary], including her granddaughters, son [and] daughter [...], have been exposed to harassment at the hands of the regional police force.” 16. In this regard, in relation to Ms. Millacura Llaipén, her son and daughter and granddaughters, the representatives have not claimed any recent threats related to the events that prompted the instant measures, that is, as a result of the investigations on the forced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura.15 The Court observes that according to the representatives, the last threatening event against Ms. Millacura Llaipén with these characteristics occurred in 2009 (supra Considering 9). From the information provided it cannot be inferred that the events which allegedly occurred in 2010, reported by the representatives, had any relation to the aforementioned investigation. Likewise, the representatives have not reported any possible recent threats against the children and granddaughters of Ms. Millacura Llaipén. 17. On the other hand, the Court observes that, as grounds for the maintenance of the instant measures, the Inter-American Commission pointed to Ms. Millacura Llaipén’s statement and the claims made by her representatives during the public hearing of May 18, 2011, as part of the contentious case Torres Millacura et al v. Argentina (supra Considering 15). In this regard, the Tribunal recalls that the goal of the instant proceedings on provisional measures is different from the goal of a contentious case, both in regard to the procedural aspects as well as the assessment of the evidence and scope of the decisions.16 The proceedings on provisional measures have been conducted at the same time but separately from the case before the Commission and the Court. transferring Ms. Tamara Bolivar to the home of Ms. Millacura Llaipen so that she could complete her “home arrest for preventive imprisonment.” Additionally, they stated that in September and October 2010, officers of the First Police Precinct of Comodoro Rivadavia and of the Argentine Naval Prefecture entered Ms. Millacura Llaipen’s home in order to serve legal notifications. According to the representatives, such notifications constitute a “deliberate violation of the [...] document dated August 9, 2006, signed as part of the instant provisional measures.” 14 In their brief of April 15, 2011, the representatives referred only to the mourning that Ms. Millacura Llaipen and her family are experiencing over the loss of Mr. Juan Pablo Caba, as well as to the family’s economic situation, the lack of medical coverage for Ms. Fabiola Valeria Torres, and to the fact that Ms. Millacura Llaipen’s granddaughters live in constant fear. Through the brief of August 21, 2011, the representatives referred to the treatment that Ms. Millacura Llaipen received at the Federal Court of Comodoro Rivadavia when requesting information on the search for her son, Mr. Ivan Eladio Torres. 15 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. regarding Argentina. Order of the Court of July 6, 2006, Considering 8. 16 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 58, and Case of Torres et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra footnote 4, para. 55. 7