6 * * * 16. That this Court notes that, in his brief of January 27, 2006, Carlos NietoPalma stated that the threats that led to the adoption of the provisional measures had come to an end, but that they remained latent because of his work as a human rights activist. Later on, the beneficiary stated that, on May 13, 1008, he was the victim of acts of intimidation by state officials, without objectively explaining in detail what such acts consisted of (supra Considering clause No. 7). 17. That, upon analyzing the observations submitted by the beneficiary on August 12 and October 29, 2008, and January 23, 2009, the Court stresses the similarity of Mr. Nieto-Palma’s statements in such documents, even though the documents of October 29, 2008 and January 23, 2009 were submitted in response to the Court’s request for information regarding his current risk situation, in accordance with the third operative paragraph of the Order of August 5, 2008 (supra Having Seen clause No. 4). In his recent communication of January 23, 2009, the beneficiary once again stated that the Metropolitan Police department is not fulfilling its obligations under the agreement of March 14, 2008 (supra Considering clause No. 7), as such agreement does not provide that “the records can be left blank, or just reflect the fact that he was not home, or even less bear the signature of an unknown person, or much less did the agreement authorize the forging of a public document.” 18. That in its comments of November 26, 2008, the Inter-American Commission stated, among other things, that in spite of Mr. Nieto-Palma’s statements in his observations, he should be asked to provide detailed, objective information evidencing the persistence of the risk that led to the order of protection. Moreover, in its two latest briefs the State did not address this issue specifically (Having Seen clause No. 5). 19. That the beneficiary has made reference to the current context of alleged intimidation against the work of human rights advocates in Venezuela. In this regard, it is the Court’s view that such alleged context is not sufficient to warrant keeping the provisional measures in place if there are no specific facts that will allow consistent conclusions on the effects of such context in the specific matter at hand. 20. That provisional measures are exceptional in nature, are ordered based on the need for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained in force if the Court considers that the basic requirements of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by said measures still exist.5 In this regard, the Court notes that submitting observations or information in connection with compliance with the provisional measures ordered by the Court is a duty of the Commission or the beneficiaries of said provisional measures and, as the case may be, of the 6, 2008, sixteenth considering clause; and Matter of "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia" newspapers, supra note 1, thirty-sixth considering clause. 5 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 3, third considering clause; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of Fundação CASA. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, sixth considering clause; and Case of the GómezPaquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of January 22, 2009, fourteenth considering clause.