19. The Court considers that in cases where provisional measures are granted in favor of organizations that defend human rights a flexible approach should be taken in determining the status of the beneficiaries. 8 This does not mean that protection measures should be extended to all members of such organizations, but rather that the criterion should be sufficiently broad to encompass, through an extension of provisional measures, the members of an organization who, because of the nature of their work, are in a situation of extreme and specific risk. In this case, the Court considers that the order to protect members of ASFADDES through the protection of the organization’s offices must be understood in a broad sense, so that if any member of said organization faces a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, he or she may benefit from these provisional measures through an extension. In its Order of 2008 the Court specified that it “consider[ed] it appropriate to continue effecting periodic risk studies in order to determine the type of protection which may be most adequate and effective in the case of each specific person and premises at risk.” 20. From the foregoing considerations it is clear that the provisional measures ordered in the operative part of the Order of February 8, 2008 refer to the protection of the ASFADDES offices and of the 12 persons individually named as beneficiaries and for whom an individualized risk was confirmed between 2001 and 2008. Moreover, the protection of offices implies the protection of members of ASFADDES while they are in those offices. Nevertheless, although the protection does not extend beyond the organization’s premises, it may involve individualized protection where specific and individual circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency are identified in relation to members of ASFADDES, which will be assessed as a possible extension of provisional measures. Therefore, the Court shall consider maintaining the provisional measures granted in the Order of February 8, 2008 solely for the beneficiaries mentioned and for the protection of the offices. 2. Implementation of protection measures in the offices of ASFADDES and analysis of the continued situations of extreme gravity and urgency therein 2.1. Information presented by the State 21. In a report of December 13, 2010, the State indicated that “the Program of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice has implemented the armoring of the following offices: ASFADDES Bucaramanga, […] ASSFADES M[edellín], […] ASSFADES N[eiva], […] ASFADDES National Headquarters […] in Bogotá [… and] ASFADDES P[opayán].” 22. In its most recent reports, the State has included in its analysis several measures related to Decree 4912 of December 26, 2011, which established the "Program for the Prevention and Protection of the rights to life, freedom and security of persons, groups and communities, of the Ministry of Interior and the National Protection Unit.” This Decree regulates activities such as the provision of cell phones, the armoring of offices 9, and regulates the operation of the Preliminary Assessment 8 Mutatis mutandi, see Matter of Álvarez et al., Order of the Court of February 8, 2008. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, Considering paras. 9, 24 and 31. 9 Cf. Article 11(1) subparagraphs f and g of Decree 4912 of 2011 states the following: “f) Means of Communication: Communications equipment delivered to the protected persons to facilitate their timely and effective contact with State institutions, the Prevention and Protection Program, in order to warn of an emergency situation, or to be in permanent contact and report on their security situation; g) Armoring of buildings and installation of technical security systems: Consists of security devices and equipment to control access to buildings owned by organizations where their headquarters are located. In exceptional cases, such 7