be necessary to apply presumptions based on the needs for protection. 5 However, maintaining the measures of protection requires the Court to make a more rigorous assessment as regards the persistence of the situation that gave rise to them.6 If the State requests that the provisional measures be lifted, it must present sufficient evidence and arguments to allow the Court to assess that the risk or threat no longer meets the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage. In turn, the burden of proof and argument of the beneficiaries and of the Inter-American Commission will increase as time goes by without any new threats. Evidently, the fact that no new threats occur may be due precisely to the effectiveness of the protection provided or to the deterrent effect of the Court’s Order. Nevertheless, the Court has considered that the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats or intimidation, added to the absence of an imminent risk, may lead to the lifting of the provisional measures.7 16. The Court must also take into account that, according to the Preamble of the American Convention, the international protection in the form of a convention “reinforce[s] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States". Therefore, if it is proved that the State in question has developed effective protection mechanisms or measures for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Court could decide to lift the provisional measures, delegating the protection obligation to the entity that bears the main responsibility: namely, the State.8 If the Court lifts the provisional measures for this reason, under its obligation to ensure human rights, the State would have to maintain the protective measures it has adopted and that the Court found effective for as long as the circumstances warranted.9 17. The Court assesses positively the willingness of the representatives, the beneficiaries and the State to create mechanisms for dialogue and agreement which have helped to establish commitments designed to implement the provisional measures in question in favor of the beneficiaries. In this regard, the Court observes that, under the existing domestic mechanisms in Colombia, physical and structural measures of protection have been implemented for Wilson Gutierrez Soler and his family, and that agreements have been reached such as the creation of a liaison with the Human Rights Program of the Vice Presidency of the Republic for Maria Elena Soler de Gutierrez to report any incident, and the agreement reached with the State so that Kevin Daniel Gutierrez Niño may use the protection system assigned to his father, Wilson Gutierrez Soler, when he is in Colombia. 18. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the latest incidents that presumably placed the life and integrity of Mr. Gutierrez Soler at risk occurred in November 2010; in other words, 5 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, tenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic, supra, twenty-fifth considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, seventh considering paragraph, Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic, supra, twenty-fifth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Matter of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures with regard to Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 26, 2010, twenty-fifth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, twenty-first considering paragraph, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 20, 2012, eighth considering paragraph. 9 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra, twenty-first considering paragraph, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al, supra, eighth considering paragraph. 6