because “to limit the analysis to the immediate time and space sphere of each beneficiary would be restrictive.” 22. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that three conditions must concur for the Court to be able to order provisional measures, namely: (a) “extreme gravity”; (b) “urgency” and (c) the need “to avoid irreparable damage.” By the same token, the three said conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them has ceased to be in effect, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. Nevertheless, it has the possibility of ordering them in the future, should the three conditions again coincide. Moreover, although, when ordering the measures of protection, the standard of assessing these requirements by the Court or the person presiding it is prima facie,9 maintaining the measures of protection requires the Court to make a more rigorous evaluation of the existence of the situation that gave rise to them.10 23. According to the Court, if a State requests the lifting or modification of the provisional measures ordered, it must present sufficient evidence and arguments to allow the Court to assess that the risk or threat no longer fulfills the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage. Moreover, the burden of proof and argument of the beneficiaries and of the Commission will increase as time goes by and there are no new threats.11 Evidently, the reason why no new threats have occurred may be due precisely to the protection provided or the dissuasive effect of the Court’s order. However, the Court has considered that the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats or intimidation, added to the lack of an imminent risk, can lead to the lifting of the provisional measures.12 24. When ordering provisional measures in this case, the Court considered that the purpose was the protection of individuals who the then President of the Court had required to provide affidavits or who had been summoned to appear as witnesses in the public hearing held before the Court, as well as their next of kin. Consequently, the 9 Cr. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of August 30, 2004, tenth considering paragraph; Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional measures with regard to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 17, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to United Mexican States. Order of the Inter-American Court of May 26, 2010, fourteenth considering paragraph. 10 Cr. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of April 3, 2009, seventh considering paragraph; Matter of A. J. et al. Provisional measures with regard to Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of September 21, 2009, eighteenth considering paragraph, and Matters of the Monagas Detention Center (“La Pica”); the Capital Region Penitentiary Center Yare I and Yare II (Yare Prison); the Occidental Region Penitentiary Center (Uribana Prison), and the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 24, 2009, fourth considering paragraph. 11 Cr. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of July 6, 2009, eighteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 3, 2010, thirtieth considering paragraph. 12 Cr. Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of July 11, 2007, eleventh considering paragraph; Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 6, 2008, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Leonel Rivero et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 25, 2008, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Liliana Ortega. Provisional measures with regard to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of July 9, 2009, fortieth considering paragraph. 7