29. Accordingly, and recalling that the Court’s intervention through the issuance of provisional measures is subsidiary and complementary, an order to adopt or maintain provisional measures is only justified in the situations established in Article 63(2) of the American Convention, in which the ordinary guarantees that exist in the State where they are requested are insufficient or ineffective, or the domestic authorities cannot or will not enforce them. 16 Based on the foregoing considerations, this Court deems it pertinent to request the parties to submit information regarding whether such conditions exist so that the State may continue adopting the measures necessary to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity of Mrs. Islena Rey Rodríguez, President of the Civic Committee, regardless of any specific provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court, in compliance with its general obligations under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, that is, to respect and guarantee the full exercise of human rights. This information shall be presented by the State within the term established in Operative paragraph 5 of this Order, and by the representatives within the term established in Operative paragraph 6. The Commission may submit any observations that it deems pertinent within the term established in Operative paragraph 7. B. Application of the provisional measures adopted in favor of Mariela Duarte widow of Giraldo and her daughters Sara and Natalia Giraldo 30. The State has repeatedly asked the Court to lift the provisional measures in respect of these three beneficiaries, considering that the circumstances that gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in their favor no longer exist. In its report of November 15, 2012 the State “emphasize[d] that nearly two (2) years have elapsed without the beneficiaries or their representatives reporting [to the State] any incident of threat, harassment or persecution [against them and have not] provided any information concerning a situation of risk related to the investigations and processes regarding the facts that gave rise to these provisional measures.” 31. For their part, in a communication of August 19, 2011, the representatives informed the Court of “new facts that demonstrate the risk [faced by the beneficiaries and reported that,] during the week of July 13 to 17, 2011, a man telephoned the home of the Giraldo Duarte family, in the city of Villavicencio, asking what had happened to the family during these years and, in particular, how and where the daughters of Josué Giraldo were.” According to the representatives, the person “identified himself as a friend of Josué who was interested in knowing about the family, without giving more information,” and “said that he would call again the following week, but did not do so, and since then no more calls have been received from that person.” Furthermore, the representatives indicated that “Mrs. Mariela does not recall knowing that man and when she asked Josué’s friends none of them recognized him.” As to the request by Colombia to partially lift the measures, the representatives stated that “the assertions made by the State […] are not consistent with its international obligations, because its conclusion is based on the absence of information […] and not on elements of the State’s activity to establish, seriously and diligently, the existence of risk.” Subsequently, in their observations of December 29, 2011, the representatives stated that “except for the telephone calls received in July 2011 […] there have been no reports of new incidents or attacks against [the beneficiaries, but] emphasize [d] that so far the Illustrious State has not provided information regarding the investigations into these facts or into previous incidents and attacks against Mariela Duarte 16 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the President of the Court of August 22, 2007, Considering paragraph 14, and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 1, 2011, Considering paragraph 40. 10