3 measures were lifted by an Order of the Court of January 31, 1997, following the delivery of the judgment on reparations and costs in the case, because the State had adopted the necessary measures to fulfill the purpose for which the measures had been ordered. Subsequently, given that “several witnesses who testified in [the contentious case] ha[d] been harassed, followed, and received threatening calls after the publication of the Court’s judgment […] on reparations and the Order […] that lifted the provisional measures adopted in the case,” in an Order of April 16, 1997, the Court required the urgent protection of the life and personal integrity of the five previous beneficiaries. In the Orders of June 3, 1999, July 4, 2006, February 6, 2008, and February 3, 2010, the Court maintained the measures or protection in favor of Mrs. Parra. 6. Given that 16 years have elapsed since the adoption of the first provisional measures in favor of the beneficiary, and that Colombia has requested that they be lifted on several occasions, the Court considers it appropriate to re-examine the information presented. 7. Based on its jurisdiction, in the context of provisional measures, the Court can only consider arguments that are strictly and directly related to the extreme gravity and urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Hence, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, the Court must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or whether new circumstances that are equally grave and urgent warrant keeping them in force. Any other matter may only be brought to the Court’s attention through a contentious case.4 a) Arguments of the parties 8. The State indicated that Mrs. Parra continues to benefit from the measures of protection ordered and described the security system that she has received since 2001 under the protection program of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice. It advised that the most recent assessment of the beneficiary’s level of risk and degree of threat prepared by the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) concluded that her level of risk was ordinary, and that this assessment “would be re-evaluated by the Risk Regulation and Evaluation Committee (CRER).” 9. In accordance with the Court’s request in the third operative paragraph of its Order of February 3, 2010, that it forward a new assessment of the level of risk and degree of threat, the State reported that it had held a meeting with the beneficiary and her representatives on May 3, 2010, “in order to comply with the undertaking made [...] at the public hearing on January 29, 2010.” Regarding the preparation of the new risk assessment, the State declared that: (i) it must be prepared under the Protection and Assistance Program for Victims, Witnesses and others who intervene in criminal proceedings of the Office of the Attorney General of Colombia (hereinafter “Witness Protection Program”), and not under the Protection Program of the Ministry of Justice and the Interior, which had been the one applicable to the beneficiary and whose latest report had “yielded an ordinary result” for the level of risk, since the risk in question arose from her participation in the criminal investigation of Mr. 4 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, sixth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Colombian Jurists Commission. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, seventh considering paragraph.