8 15. That the adoption of provisional measures does not imply a possible decision on the merits of the existing dispute between the petitioners and the State if the case, finally, were submitted to the Court,7 not does it prejudge on the responsibility of the State for the facts reported. * * * 16. That after the urgent measures had been adopted by the President, the InterAmerican Commission further informed that “new incidents have taken place that seem to be related to the situation of risk in which the beneficiaries are.” It added that “last week a person connected to the ACREDH organization was beaten by a group of armed persons, apparently linked to the police. Likewise, it was mentioned that two of the beneficiaries had had to move to the city of Port-au-Prince along with their next of kin, due to the continuing threats being expressed in various ways, among which, through anonymous phone calls to the organization.” The Commission concluded by pointing out that the information furnished by the beneficiaries “shows that the risk situation would be extending to other persons related to the ACREDH organization in an indirect manner. Taking into consideration the continuing threats the representatives mention and under the prima facie standard, the Commission consider[ed] that it was in order to request the Inter-American Court that, at the moment it decides whether to ratify the urgent measures ordered by the President of the Court, it expand the provisional measures to include as well the next of kin of the four beneficiaries belonging to the ACREDH organization […].” 17. That, as regards the request to expand the provisional measures submitted by the Inter-American Commission in its brief dated September 18, 2009, regarding the next of kin of the four members of the ACREDH organization hereinbefore mentioned, the Court decides to provisionally include such persons as beneficiaries of the measures ordered by means of the instant Order, in the terms stated hereunder. 18. That the Court recalls that when ordering protection measures the Tribunal or its President does not require, in principle, proof of the facts which would prima facie appear to meet the standards in Article 63 of the Convention. On the contrary, maintaining the protection measures requires that the Court assess whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to persons that gave rise to such protection measures still persists, on the basis of proven information.8 19. That on the basis of the foregoing, the Court deems it fit to order that within the time limit set in the sixth operative paragraph of the instant Order, the beneficiaries or their representatives and the Inter-American Commission, forward detailed information and elements backing the individual situation, the existence, the nature and the origin or the source of the risk affecting the next of kin mentioned in the request by the Inter-American Commission to expand the measures. 7 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated July 13, 1998 , Considering Clause Number Six; Matter of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 1, Considering Clause Number Nineteen; and Matter of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan. Provisional Measures regarding Barbados. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated December 2, 2008, Considering Clause Number Eleven. 8 Cf. Matter of Pérez Tores et al. (“Cotton Field”). Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights dated July 6, 2009, Considering Clause Number Twenty.