persists and to order the most appropriate protective measures, so that the beneficiaries do not have to continue displacing, risking their life and safety. The Commission considered that, owing to the complexity of these provisional measures, the prompt conduct of the risk assessments and any observations that the representatives may present on their results, are “relevant tools” to assess the pertinence of the request to lift the provisional measures. Moreover, the Commission asserted that, even though it was appropriate to weigh the time that has elapsed without the perpetration of acts of harassment, under the actual circumstances, other aspects must be taken into account, such as the fact that the risk for the beneficiaries arose from the common element of being an important part of the proceedings for the Mapiripán massacre, which is still under investigation at the domestic level. Lastly, it added that the decrease in the threats to each of the beneficiaries could be a result of the measures that they have adopted motu propio to safeguard their life and safety, a situation that, in this matter, is reflected by the displacement of several of them. 20. The representatives stated that, in general, several factors are decisive for considering that there is still a situation of risk for the beneficiaries. The following were the most important: (a) “[it has been] proved that approximately 100 members of the AUC and a similar number of law enforcement agents participated in the planning, perpetration and subsequent concealment of the facts known as the Mapiripán massacre [and that] only a few of them have been investigated and punished”; (b) “although […] the national Government launched a negotiation process with the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia) (AUC) to ‘achieve their demobilization,’ the official figures reveal that the paramilitary demobilization process was not effective and that, in various regions of the country, there is presence of paramilitary groups with similar characteristics to those of the AUC […]”; (c) “the activity of these groups is corroborated by the situation of several of the victims of this case, who, after the judgment was delivered, were forced to displace successively”; in particular the situation of Nory Giraldo, Carmen Contreras, Viviana Barrera and their next of kin; (d) “despite the situation of impunity […], in this case, important judicial progress has been made in the last year, including the first sentencing and conviction of a general of the Republic for grave human rights violations, and the recent sentencing of two paramilitary agents who had participated in the massacre;7 (e) the trials of some of them in Colombia,8 and (f) the implication of law enforcement agents and members of paramilitary groups in judicial investigations. The representatives of the beneficiaries argued that “this progress involves an additional situation of risk for the victims and, although they assume the risk, this does not relieve the Colombian State of its guarantee of protection.” 21. Lastly, the representatives informed the Court that the beneficiaries of the measures – without specifying who - had agreed to inform the State of their contact information so that risk assessments could be made, and this would be forwarded as soon as possible. In addition, they repeated that the individual assessments must incorporate, among other elements, “a risk assessment perspective that takes into account structural factors related to the situation of human rights in the regions where the beneficiaries live,” as well as the current status of the criminal proceedings, 7 Third Criminal Court of the Villavicencio Specialized Circuit. Judgment of October 11, 2010. Case 50-001-31-07-003-2010-00073-00 against Humberto Antonio Aguilar Allian and Eliecer Manuel Romero Herrera. 8 They advised that, on November 11, 2010, a preparatory hearing was held in the proceedings against Jesus Ramos Machado, one of the paramilitary agents who entered Mapiripán with the group. The defense counsel requested that the case be processed separately, and the hearing in the proceedings being conducted against paramilitary commanders has been postponed twice. 6