2 7. The public hearing on these provisional measures held on February 4, 2008, at the seat of the Court.1 8. The request to lift the provisional measures ordered in the instant case by the State in such public hearing. In that opportunity, the State made the following representations, among others: a) regarding the validity of the provisional measures, it reminded that said measures were adopted in 1994, given the participation of the beneficiaries as witnesses in the case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana, and that through various orders of the Court, the measures were lifted in relation to certain beneficiaries. Since then, the State has adopted the provisional measures ordered and has performed an ongoing follow-up on their implementation. That notwithstanding, the State alleged that the measures should be lifted since: i) they have been in force for more than 13 years, and in fact provisional measures should be exceptional in nature; ii) there is no evidence of new threats; iii) domestic law provides for effective mechanisms to protect a person who acts as trade union leader, as in the case of María Nodelia Parra and a person detained in a penitentiary, as in the case of Gonzalo Arias-Alturo. Furthermore, as to the specific situation of María Nodelia Parra, the State reported that in 2007, it carried out a current risk assessment, which showed that the level of risk was “normal”. In the case of Gonzalo Arias-Alturo, the State indicated that said individual made contradictory statements, since at a certain instance it requested that the measures ordered be lifted and recently it expressed its will to maintain those measures. The State held that similar contradictory statements were detected in relation to the other beneficiary, as regards her allegations on the occurrence of new threats. Lastly, the State added that the reasons for requesting in 1997 the reinforcement of the provisional measures in favor of these two beneficiaries cannot be upheld today as grounds for continuity thereof. Today, there would be more means to guarantee the exercise of rights and freedoms, more capacity and commitment by the State to protect individuals. The State indicated that there is no information available to prove that the circumstances of risk became more serve and that the criminal investigations related to these 1 The following persons were present at this hearing: a) for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Manuela Cuvi-Rodríguez and Karin Mantel, advisors; b) for the Republic of Colombia: Carlos Franco Echevarría, Director of the Presidential Human Rights Program and International Humanitarian Law (Programa Presidencial para los Derechos Humanos Derecho Internacional Humanitario); Clara Inés VargasSilva, Director of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Francisco Javier Echeverri-Lara, Director of the Office of International Affairs, General Prosecutor’s Office; Juan Carlos Gómez-Ramírez, Director of Human Rights, National Ministry of Defense; Eduth Claudia Hernández-Aguilar, Coordinator of Defense before international organizations for the National Ministry of Defense; Liliana Romero, Advisor for the Office of International Affairs, General Prosecutor’s Office; and Janneth Mabel Lozano-Olave, Coordinator of Protection and Information for International Organizations, Board of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and c) for the representatives of the beneficiaries of provisional measures: Gustavo Gallón-Giraldo and Luz Marina Monzón, both members of the Colombian Commission of Legal Scholars (Comisión Colombiana de Juristas).