character,10 as they protect human rights insofar as they seek to prevent irreparable damage to persons.11 5. The Court recalls that according to the Preamble to the American Convention, international protection in the form of a convention “reinforc[es] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” Therefore, on finding that the State in question has implemented mechanisms or taken protective actions that are effective for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Court can rule to lift the provisional measures, placing the duty of protection upon the responsible party - that is, the State.12 If the provisional measures are lifted by the Court for this reason, it falls to the State, per its duty to guarantee human rights, to maintain the protective measures that it has adopted and that the Court deemed effective, and to do so for the period of time required by the circumstances. 6. Regarding this, and pursuant to the information submitted, the Court agrees with and shares the reasons for which the President ordered, through the Order of December 10, 2010, urgent measures under the circumstances described by the Inter-American Commission at the time the provisional measures were submitted for request, and fully agrees with the decision made at that time. 7. The Court observes that according to the information reported (supra Having Seen 12 and 15), the State has adopted a series of measures to comply with the order of the President of the Court granting the urgent measures. 8. Additionally, the Court verifies that given the events that subsequently occurred, currently the factual situation on which the adoption of urgent measures to the benefit of Ms. Afiuni was based no long exists. Evidently the beneficiary’s situation of risk has not been completely eliminated, but the situation of vulnerability in which those deprived of liberty live is an inherent characteristic of this condition. In this regard, the Court observes that the adoption of substitute measures of preventive detention that change the conditions of Judge Afiuini’s detention by placing her under “house arrest” demonstrate that her current situation does not meet the standard of gravity previously verified and that the urgency and imminence of the situation are no longer present. 9. With regard to the eventual need for specialized medical care from doctors of Judge Afiuni’s choosing, the Court observes that in response to the brief presented by the representatives on December 13, 2010, to request compliance with the President’s Order, 10 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (Periódico “La Nación”), supra footnote 6, Considering 4; Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 2, 2010, Considering 6, and Matter of Centro Penitenciario de Aragua “Cárcel de Tocorón”. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 1, 2010, Considering 6. 11 Cf. Matter of El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra footnote 7, Considering 8; Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra footnote 8, Considering 6, and Matter of Centro Penitenciario de Aragua “Cárcel de Tocorón”, supra footnote 8, Considering 6. 12 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 20, 2003, Considering 13; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre in favor of the members of “Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial” (ECAP). Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, Considering 6, and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, Considering 40. 16