rendered before the Court. Upon maintaining the measures, the Court took into consideration that she had already rendered her statement, but in consideration of her situation at that time and the fear expressed by her due to the facts that occurred after her statement, and Mrs. Pierre’s specific circumstances, it considered that her situation and that of her children should be considered as of extreme gravity and urgency. 25. Despite the aforementioned, this Court points out that the reasons stated by the representatives regarding the children of Mrs. Pierre in relation to certain facts they consider to be threats or acts of harassment, and the fact that Solange Manuela Pierre and Charlemane Dandre Pierre currently work at MUDHA, are not directly related to the purpose of the measures originally adopted. Moreover, the Court takes note of that mentioned by the Inter-American Commission regarding “the lack of implementation of protection measures” and “the lack of specific information” that contradicts the alleged “persistence of certain factors” that would put at risk the integrity and life of Mrs. Pierre’s children. Without detriment of the aforementioned, it also observes that the Commission based the alleged persistence of the situation of risk on the alleged relationship with “the activities carried out by [Solange Pierre] as a human rights defender” (supra considering paragraph 22). The Court considers that this reference is of a general nature and it is not sufficient to sustain a situation of extreme gravity and urgency related to possible irreparable damage to Mrs. Pierre’s children. In this regard, the Court recalls that the principle of prima facie assessment of a case and the application of assumptions in cases when protection is required has led the Court, or its Presidency, to order provisional measures on many occasions.9 Without detriment to the foregoing, the need to maintain the protective measures calls for a more strict evaluation by the Court of the existence of the situation that gave rise to those measures.10 26. Based on the aforementioned, in light of the information presented, the Court concludes that, with regard to the children of Solange Pierre, the requirements established in Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 27 of the Rules of Procedure are not present, and even though the State has not adequately complied with the provisional measures ordered, it is appropriate to rescind them. C) Regarding the situation of Messrs. Sension, Gelin, and Medina 27. In its report of June 29, 2012, the State indicated that Mr. Sension’s safeconduct was renewed in April 2010; that he already has a Dominican identification and voter’s card and thus, the risk of being repatriated has ceased. It also observed that the beneficiary did not mention any news or the occurrence of any fact that put his life and personal integrity at risk. The State also indicated in its report of July 13, 2012, that the representatives indicated “they are not aware of the whereabouts” of Mr. Sensión at a meeting held on June 18th and therefore the Court should rescind the 9 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of August 30, 2004, tenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, twenty-second considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009; seventh considering paragraph, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of June 26, 2012, twenty-third considering paragraph. 8