mentioned in a criminal complaint does not constitute per se a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. A “potential risk” does not meet the threshold of a specific risk. 48. As to the telephone calls received by María Eugenia López Maya on September 17, 2012, the representatives have not presented any specific information showing that these constitute autonomous situations of extreme gravity and urgency. 49. Therefore, the Court decides to lift the provisional measures regarding Mrs. María Eugenia López Maya, given that no detailed information has been provided demonstrating a specific situation of extreme gravity and urgency that would justify their continuation. 3.2. Adriana Diosa 50. The State did not submit information regarding the specific situation of Adriana Diosa after 2008. 51. In their report of January 10, 2009 the representatives stated that Mrs. Diosa’s “name and very detailed personal information has been used by strangers at financial institutions to obtain loans and she has found out because she appears reported in the data-credit offices for non-fulfillment of her obligations” and that this “took place in 2008.” 52. The Commission did not submit observations regarding her situation of risk. 53. The Court recalls that in order to monitor the implementation of provisional measures and evaluate their continuation it is necessary to determine whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that gave rise to those measures persists. 15 The usefulness (effet utile) of provisional measures depends, to a great extent, on the real possibility that they can be implemented. 16 In the absence of information regarding extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to life and physical integrity, it is appropriate to lift the provisional measures adopted. 17 54. Therefore, the Court decides to lift the provisional measures regarding Mrs. Adriana Diosa, given that no up-to-date information has been provided showing a specific situation of extreme gravity and urgency that would justify maintaining these measures. 3.3 Astrid Manrique 55. The State alleged that “the petitioners have not provided up-to-date information demonstrating the persistence of a situation of gravity and urgency 15 Cf. Matter of the Indigenous Community of Kankuamo. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of Inter-American Court of April 3, 2009, Considering para. 7, and Case of the Barrios Family. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of May 30, 2013, Considering para. 11. 16 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of July 4, 2006, Considering para. 13, and Case of the Barrios Family. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of May 30, 2013, Considering para. 12. 17 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009, Considering para. 42, and Matter Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Argentine Republic. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, Considering para. 12. 14