Moreover, “there have been no attacks on or threats against the life of Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza or his family, or that of his lawyers.” It added that the provisional measures have been maintained for more than five years “which runs contrary to their temporary nature.” It advised that, during the processing of the criminal proceeding (case file No. 733-08), beneficiary’s liberty was not restricted and there were no criminal charges filed against him; rather, he merely took part in the proceedings as a witness; “there is no risk to Mr. Rmírez Hinostroza’s life and personal integrity;” his participation in the proceeding concluded with his testimony and, since August 31, 2009, “to date, there have been no attempts on his life.” In addition, the State indicated that the proceeding “is currently at the appeal for annulment stage before the Supreme Court, making Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s participation in it unnecessary.” Lastly, the State addressed alleged “perpetration of illegal acts” by the beneficiary, including “material damages and […] abuse of the right to police protection” based on events that took place on June 20, 2011, in a casino that Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza visited. 18. Regarding the alleged detention of Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza, which supposedly took place on February 25, 2011, the State indicated that the beneficiary “remained for a brief period of time in the facilities of the Peruvian Army’s Concepción Military Base merely in order to communicate with the competent authority to clarify the cutting the tree-cutting incident, and because the individual in question refused to identify himself, […] ruling out the possibility that this was an arbitrary detention.” The State affirmed that “the investigations [into the incident] have been conducted by personnel of the National Police of Peru from the Concepción Precinct Police Headquarters, headed by the […] Concepción Provincial Prosecutor, who, according to […] the Peruvian Constitution, ensures compliance with the law and leads any criminal action. It is his responsibility to conduct the criminal investigation.” 19. The Commission observed that although no new attacks on Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s life and personal integrity had taken place, the risk to his life arises from his active role in judicial investigations. This is particularly true with regard to the proceedings in case file No. 733-08, in which he took part as a witness, and because it can be anticipated that he will continue to play an active part in them. Consequently, the Commission found it “reasonable to infer that the source of risk continues and that, for a prudent amount of time, the provisional measures should be maintained for of all the beneficiaries.” It argued that the risk is not exhausted immediately after a witness testifies. Rather it is important to know the results of the proceeding, if it has resulted in convictions and sentences, and whether those sentences are being executed. Regarding the alleged detention of Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza on February 25, 2011, the Commission was “concerned that the information provided did not include a clear explanation of the beneficiary’s alleged injuries on February 26, 2011.” Since the injuries were recorded on the day after the detention, the State should “provide an explanation for the situation.” 20. The Court recalls that when it orders protective measures, the standard for the assessment of the Court or agent assessing these requirements is prima facie, and at times, when addressing a need for protection, it is necessary to make assumptions.7 7 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, Considering 10, and Case of González Medina and Relatives. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2011. Considering 13. 6