awaiting the orders of the Commander of the VIII-DIRTEPOL-HYO regarding security service for [Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza] and family.”6 In this regard, the Court has no evidence that the State has withdrawn the protection service enjoyed by the beneficiaries. The Court will not rule with regard to the alleged lack of psychological medical assistance, because this point is not related to the objectives of these provisional measures. 14. Despite the discrepancies between the parties and the problems that have occurred in relation to the implementation of certain measures of protection in favor of the beneficiaries, the Court has verified that the State has provided protection in the context of these provisional measures. b) Information on the situation of risk to the beneficiaries 15. Regarding the information requested by the representatives in the last order (supra Having Seen 1 and Considering 7), they indicated: (a) regarding the progress of case file No. 733-08, that on February 17, 2010, “the oral proceeding continued with the questioning of the medical expert witnesses, [and] in a subsequent oral session, [the beneficiary] was questioned in his capacity as a witness to the facts.” Currently, the case is in the stage of an appeal for annulment; b) regarding the connection of the beneficiary to this proceeding, that he was “summoned by the […] prosecutor of the Third Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Huancayo, as a witness, […] to describe the incidents that he was able to observe during his arbitrary detention in the December 9 barracks;” and (c) regarding the circumstances of risk to the life and integrity of the beneficiaries, that “at the hearing of August 31, 2009, before the national second criminal chamber […] he was able to identify two individuals [who are] legally in a situation of forced disappearance.” For this reason, since the beneficiary is an “exceptional witness” of the proceedings and has been summoned to testify by the Public Prosecutor in order to identify disappeared students, and given that “an unidentified group that perpetrates attacks against the beneficiary” exists, that group could carry out attacks and cause irreparable harm. 16. Subsequently, the representatives reported that on February 25, 2011, Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza had suffered an “arbitrary detention […] at the hands of members of the Peruvian army from the base in Concepción[,] while he was working cutting down trees.” They noted that “the detention lasted for three hours […] [In addition,] an official who did not identify himself used his official weapon to intimidate [the beneficiary, and also,] inside the facilities, he allegedly suffered physical and psychological ill-treatment.” They stated that the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office following the complaint about what happened reveal that “this act is not being considered […] a crime against humanity.” In addition, Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza advised that “since then, [he has been] receiving telephone and other threats.” 17. The State reiterated its request to lift the provisional measures “because currently there are no reasons of extreme gravity or urgency, and neither is a need to avoid irreparable harm to the beneficiaries alleged; consequently, since the reasons for granting the provisional measures have disappeared, they should cease.” 6 Official Letters No. 2412, 2415 and 2418-2010-VIII-DIRTERPOLJRPJ-DIVSEEST-HYO, of December 1, 2010. Appendices to the State report of February 21, 2011 (case file of the provisional measures, volume VII, pages 3108 to 3110). 5