into consideration, among other matters, “[t]he level of violence or risk faced by the group [that] the beneficiaries of a country or region belong to, at a specific moment in time; general considerations regarding the location or population in which the beneficiaries are located[; n]ew or recent facts of violence, threat or harassment committed against one or more of the beneficiaries[; a]ctions taken by the beneficiaries of the provisional measures themselves that reflect a fear of being victimized once again[; t]he level of clarification and ceasing of the factors that led to the risk[, and the] situation of impunity in the contentious case that led to the measures in the instant case.” The representatives also indicated that “the increase in the number of different facts and threats […] indicates that the risk faced by all groups of beneficiaries persists.” They “did not consider that the number of persons at risk could be limited to 20; on the contrary, as long as different factors continue to persist, such as impunity and […] the occurrence of various attacks, which, due to their characteristics and despite being linked to one person or certain persons in particular, indicate a risk to the group to which that person belongs,” and “[are] fully convinced that the beneficiaries of all the groups identified […] are at risk.” Lastly, they reported that the following beneficiaries no longer work at Tlachinollan: Claudia Ordoñez Viquez, Isauro Romero Solano, Dionicio Villano González, Jane Eva Jones, Laura Lizette Aragón Castro, Mario Patrón Sánchez, Patricia Bordier Morteo, Prometeo Rodríguez Lucero, Teresa de la Cruz, Alejandra Gonzáles Marín and Rommel Cain Chacan Pale. 18. Regarding the beneficiaries’ situation of risk, the State requested an assessment of the conditions established in the American Convention for the maintenance of measures with regard to each and every one of the beneficiaries. Firstly, it requested “an assessment of whether the 108 beneficiaries continue to face a situation of gravity and urgency.” The State alleged that in the beneficiaries’ reports to the Court, they only showed that a small group faces a situation of risk, comprised of: (a) Inés Fernández Ortega and her immediate family; (b) Cuauhtémoc Ramírez and Obtilia Eugenio Manuel, directors of OPIM, and (c) Abel Barerra Hernández, Director of the Centro de Derechos Humanos Tlachinollan and the people directly involved with the defense in Ms. Fernández Ortega’s case. With respect to the others, the State affirmed that “there are no grounds to indicate that the [beneficiaries] are facing a situation of gravity and urgency that would support a decision to leave the provisional measures to their benefit in effect.” Regarding the State’s capacity to handle the situations of risk that may arise for the beneficiaries, it considered that “the effectiveness of the measures implemented is reflected in the decrease in the risk faced by the majority of beneficiaries.” 19. The Commission reported that on May 17, 2010, Ana Luz Prisciliano Fernández “received death threats against her and her parents. [She] was intercepted by two individuals who asked about her parents and about those accompanying her mother in the proceedings [;] they stole her cell phone [and] one of the men put a kitchen knife to her waist while they tried to get her into a vehicle. However, [she] was able to break free and run home.” 20. In addition, the Commission underlined that “the instant provisional measures protect not only the victims of the case and their defenders, but also the people who belong to the organizations that defend human rights, with this being the main reason they are the target of threats and harassment.” The Commission thus considered that the gravity and urgency of these measures remain, in light of the visibility of the cases in question. 8