2008 restricted the coverage of these measures to 12 beneficiaries and to the members through the protection of the offices of ASFADDES. 7. There is some disagreement between the parties regarding the scope of this Order, and for this reason the Court shall first rule on the universe of beneficiaries of the measures (1). It shall then determine whether a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists so as to prevent irreparable damage to the offices of ASFADDES (2) and to the beneficiaries of the Order issued in 2008 (3). Finally, the Court shall respond to the petitioners’ allegation regarding the shortcomings of the criminal and disciplinary investigations into the threats and harassment suffered by the beneficiaries (4). 1. Scope of the ruling of February 8, 2008 1.1. Arguments regarding the request to consider all members of ASFADDES and of the organizations "Nydia Erika Bautista Foundation" and "Familiares Colombia" to be included within the Order issued in 2008. 8. The representatives requested that “the Court specify that these protection measures are to cover the offices of the Nydia Erika Bautista Foundation and of “Familiares Colombia”. Furthermore, they considered that “the protection ordered is directed at the members of ASFADDES – without individually identifying them -, so that new members and, in particular, leaders of the Association, are also covered by those measures. Provisional measures are dynamic by definition and, a fortiori, when they seek to protect the life and integrity of a group of people who carry out activities – within the framework of an organization – putting their lives and integrity at risk. Thus, the individuals who have joined ASFADDES and/or have been appointed to management positions within ASFADDES, and who for reasons of timing were not mentioned in previous Orders for Provisional Measures, must equally be covered by the provisional measures”. The representatives argued that: i) the “Court has decreed physical measures of protection without as yet individualizing the beneficiaries”; ii) “[t]he aim of these measures, is not to protect the premises of the ASFADDES offices per se, but rather to protect the life and physical integrity of the members of ASFADDES who work there and those who visit those offices”, and iii) “from the spirit and letter of the successive Orders issued by the […] Court in the procedure in question, it is inferred that the protection ordered is aimed at members of ASFADDES – without individualizing them -, so that new members and, in particular, leaders of the Association, are also beneficiaries of these measures.” 9. The State argued that “the Court ordered the adoption of physical measures of protection specifically for the twelve (12) people named in Operative Paragraph 2 of the Order [of February 8, 2008], while the rest of the members of ASFADDES are covered by the protection provided to the organization’s offices.” It added that “the State has provided and shall provide measures of protection to other members of ASFADDES who are not individually named in Operative Paragraph 2, in accordance with its obligations under Article 1(1) of the American Convention.” Regarding those beneficiaries who currently work as human rights defenders in other social organizations different to ASFADDES, the State noted that “both the context, and the specific situations that gave rise to the adoption of these provisional measures are intrinsically related to acts of violence against the ASFADDES organization or its members. Thus, the State indicated that membership of said Association is a parameter when examining the application of provisional measures”. 4