5 the measures of protection that this program would provide, and the consequences for the already exceptional living conditions of the beneficiary. 13. At the public hearing of January 9, 2010, the representatives indicated that: (a) “recently [the beneficiary] has not been followed, threatened, or received any calls;” (b) the last threatening act against her occurred more than five years ago and involved “the perception that her communications were being intercepted,” and (c) “before this, there was a very specific threat and danger, not only for her, but also for her son, and this was in December 1998, when […] a member of the Police followed them, their vehicle, and her movements.” In the representatives’ opinion, the present absence of threats and harassment is due to the failure to advance the criminal investigation into the case since 2003. Nevertheless, the situation of risk for Mrs. Parra was reactivated seriously in 2009, when the Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the said procedure decided to systematize activities in order to advance the investigation, and took some actions such as measures to locate members of the Army and Police who could testify about the facts, and another statement from the beneficiary on November 11, 2009. In addition, the Prosecutor’s Office has tried to file an appeal for review in order to remove the legal obstacles that prevent the criminal prosecution of members of the Army who were identified as participants in the forced disappearance. Thus, the Office’s conduct reveals “numerous activities that objectively reflect the interest and the objective, sustainable rather than hypothetical determination to conduct the investigation.” This progress must be accompanied with due protection for those who participate in these procedures, because, as the Prosecutor’s Office indicated in its report of March 5, 2008, the witnesses continue to be afraid of testifying. 14. During the above-mentioned public hearing, the Commission assessed the measures adopted by the State to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiary, It recalled that, essentially, the present measures are related to Mrs. Parra’s activities as a civil party to the criminal investigation into the said forced disappearance. In the instant case, the situation of risk increases or decreases in keeping with the progress in the said investigation. The absence of threats during a certain time cannot be evaluated on its own, but rather it is reasonable to infer that it is a result of inactivity in the investigative process. Hence, considering the reactivation of the investigation at the end of 2009, the Commission expressed its concern regarding the possibility of new acts that would endanger the life and personal integrity of the beneficiary. Subsequently, it indicated that it “was awaiting the risk assessment to be carried out by the State” and referred to the lack of information regarding “the investigations into the facts that gave rise to the provisional measures and [whether] they had been linked to or obtained feedback from the investigation into the forced disappearance of Mr. Caballero Delgado,” a measure that would contribute to overcoming the risk of irreparable harm in this case. b) Considerations of the Court 15. The Court recalls that, when ordering measures of protection, the principle of prima facie is the standard used for assessing the requirements of the Court or the person presiding it and, faced with the need for protection, it has sometimes been necessary to apply hypotheses.5 Despite this, the need to maintain measures of 5 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, tenth considering paragraph; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 2, twenty-seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of the Mendoza