Moreover, the beneficiary Abel Barrera, director of the organization Tlachinollan, received threats in 2009 and 2011. These threats mentioned his organization’s work and the said contentious case (supra considering paragraphs 16(h) and (o)). Additionally, other members of this organization observed acts of harassment or threats while at their office (supra considering paragraph 16(k)). 25. Regarding the next of kin of Raúl Lucas Lucía and Manuel Ponce Rosas, the Court verifies that aside from an incident that occurred in June 2009, no recent events directly linked with the Fernández Ortega case have been reported that would place their integrity or security at risk. In this regard, with respect to the last fact reported by the representatives (the arrest of Máximo García Catarino), the Court observes that it is in no way related to the said contentious case, but rather has to do with a Federal Public Prosecutor investigation into the death of a person, in which two witnesses had allegedly indicated that Mr. García Catarino participated in the fact. Moreover, the representatives’ argument that there is risk to the next of kin because the investigation of the forced disappearance and subsequent torture and execution of Raúl Lucas Lucía and Manuel Ponce Rosas has not been completed, does not provide a strong basis on which to conclude that there continues to be a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in which it is urgent to prevent possible irreparable damage to the persons. The Court recalls its criteria that the burden of proof and argument is different when adopting provisional measures compared to when requesting they be continued (infra considering paragraph 27). 26. With regard to the members of OPIM, the Court observes that it is not evident that all of the facts claimed by the representatives are related to the Fernandez Ortega et al. case. In fact, notwithstanding the Court’s Order of November 23, 2010 dismissing a request to extend the provisional measures, the representatives continued to indicate facts included in the said request as evidence of the risk faced by the members of that organization. In addition, it cannot be inferred that “the harsh verbal exchange” and the attempt made by members of the army to inspect private vehicles on June 6, 2011 (supra considering paragraph 16(p)), represent the continuation of a situation of risk of irreparable damage to all of the organization’s members. The Court does not have enough information on the continued situation of risk of the beneficiaries of the instant provisional measures to allow it to verify the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity, urgency and need to prevent irreparable damages to these persons. Therefore, it asks the representatives to provide a detailed report on the situation of risk faced by each of the individuals in the group of beneficiaries (infra considering clause 31). 27. The Court recalls that when issuing protective measures, the assessment standard of these requirements by the Court or whoever presides is prima facie, and the application of presumptions is at times necessary in light of the needs for protection.7 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maintenance of the protective measures demands a more rigorous assessment by the Court in terms of the persistence of the situation that resulted in these measures. 8 If a State requests the 7 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, tenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2011. Twentieth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional Measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al., supra footnote 7, considering paragraph 20. 10