Mr. Sensión and his next of kin reside in Dominican Republic and their safe-conducts were renewed in the month of April 2010. c) Mr. William Medina Ferreras Mr. William Medina, who resides in Haitian territory, obtained his safe-conduct in the month of March 2002, and the safe-conducts of both him and his next of kin were renewed in the month of April 2010. However, they stated the family is terrified to return to Dominican Republic due to the acts of violence and discrimination, as well as due to lack of economic means, since according to the representatives in order to return to Dominican territory the border authorities ask them for money illegally. d) Mr. Benito Tide Méndez In comments dated October 16, 2009, and March 16, 2010, the representatives stated that communication with the beneficiary had been interrupted since Mr. Tide Méndez mentioned in a 2007 interview that he was afraid of “possible retaliation from the Dominican authorities” and due to difficulties with accessing the area where the beneficiary lives. Additionally, they stated that Mr. Tide Méndez “continue[d] to face acts of discrimination,” such as the refusal to replace his Dominican identification on March 28, 2007. They added that they will continue in their efforts to reestablish contact as soon as possible. Also, they reported in comments dated October 16, 2009, that Mr. Tide Méndez had a safe-conduct. However, in the communications forwarded by the representatives on June 8, 2010, and October 7, 2011, his name was not included on any of the lists of people who received safe-conducts or did not receive them, nor have the representatives offered updated information on his specific situation. 28. In comments dated June 3, 2010, the Commission reiterated that it was not appropriate for the State to raise issues of admissibility or the merits of the case in its reports when the case was currently being processed before the Commission. Likewise, it added that in requesting that the measures be lifted, the State did not submit information demonstrating that the circumstances leading to the adoption of the measures had changed. Likewise, the Commission noted that the State did not present information regarding the steps taken to clarify the “acts of violence” that took place with regard to Mr. Berson Gelin. Finally, it “reiterated that it was necessary and important for the State to continue to ensure the validity and effectiveness of the measures adopted, especially the safe-conducts granted to the beneficiaries and their next of kin.” 29. The Court recalls that when a State requests the lifting or modification of the provisional measures ordered, it must present evidence and arguments sufficient to allow the Tribunal to assess that the risk or threat no longer meets with the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damages. At the same time, the representatives of the beneficiaries that want the measures to continue must present evidence of the reasons why.11 30. The Tribunal acknowledges that the lack of threats does not necessarily mean there is no risk to a person. However, given the passage of a certain amount of time with no threats, the Tribunal must examine the reasons why the threats are no longer taking place in order to determine if the provisional measures should be maintained. At the same time, it 11 Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic, supra footnote 7, Considering 19. 8