27. In its observations of February 17, 2012, the Commission considered that “the main source of risk for the children of Solain Pierre arose from her activity as a human rights defender.” Nevertheless, it noted that “recently, Mrs. Pierre’s children have been followed and subjected to other acts of intimidation,” such as: (a) on November 5, Leticia Dandre Pie, was followed by an unknown man while returning from the university; (b) Manuela began to work in the legal department of MUDHA and to receive public exposure; (c) for several months, Carlos has been working in the transportation department of this organization, and (d) on several occasions, they had seen a car with tinted windows driving slowly by their home. In addition, it indicated that several MUDHA employees had been followed and that, on November 22, 2011, they had filed a complaint before the National District Public Prosecutor based on these incidents. Finally, it considered that “until the Court has verified that, owing to Mrs. Pierre’s death, the reasons for the risk to and vulnerability of her children have ceased, the provisional measures in their favor should be maintained.” 28. The Court recalls that, when ordering provisional measures, the standard for the assessment of these requirements by the Court or its President is prima facie because, at times, presumptions must be made when faced with the need for protection.8 Nevertheless, maintaining measures of protection requires the Court to make a more rigorous assessment regarding the continuation of the situation that gave rise to the measures.9 If a State requests that the provisional measures ordered be lifted or modified, it must present sufficient evidence and arguments to allow the Court to appreciate that the risk or the threat no longer meet the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to prevent irreparable harm. However, the burden of proof and arguments of the beneficiaries and the Commission will increase with the passage of time during which no new acts occur of the magnitude of those that resulted in the provisional measures.10 Furthermore, in order to determine whether it is appropriate to maintain the provisional measures, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that protection measures should be of an essentially provisional and temporary nature.11 29. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that the State requested the lifting of the measures in favor of the children of Solange Pierre owing to her death, without making a specific analysis of the current situation of each one. Meanwhile, in its observations, the Commission recalled the comments of the representatives, and gave a general description of the situation of the children and the fact that they have allegedly been followed. The Commission did not refer specifically to the current situation of risk of each one, even though, according to the Court’s case law, the burden of proof and argument increases with the passage of time in order to prove the need to maintain the provisional measures based on the concurrence of the three conditions: extreme gravity, urgency and the need to 8 Cf. Case Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, Considering paragraph 10, and Case of González Medina and Family. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of August 30, 2011, Considering paragraph 13. 9 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering paragraph 7, and Matter of the Penitentiaries of Mendoza. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 1, 2011, Considering paragraph 30. 10 Cf. Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 11, 2007, Considering paragraph 11, and Case of Caballero Delgado et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 25, 2011, Considering paragraph 15. 11 Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 8, 2009, Considering paragraph 20. 7