4. Based on its jurisdiction, within the framework of provisional measures, the Court shall only give due consideration to arguments that are strictly and directly related to the requirements of extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. In order to decide whether to maintain in effect the provisional measures, the Court must determine whether or not the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or if there are new circumstances, equally grave and urgent, which merit their maintenance. Any other issue may only be brought before the Court through the corresponding contentious cases.4 a) Implementation of the provisional measures 5. In relation to the implementation of the provisional measures, the State informed the Court, among other aspects, that: a) On September 16, 2010, a meeting was held to monitor the measures so implemented. The beneficiary excused herself for not being able to attend the meeting, hence the meeting was held with her representatives. At this meeting, amendments were made to the implementation of the provisional measures as indicated by them and the following protective measures were agreed: daily patrol rounds outside the residence and work place of the beneficiary, as well as a direct liaison line with the National Police. Moreover, they agreed on that, in order to effectively comply with said precautionary measures, monthly meetings would be held, which could be also requested by the beneficiary, in written and “in advance"; b) On February 16, 2012, a follow-up meeting was held, in which it was agreed that the State would comply with the patrolling decided when seeking a consensus on the protection measures ordered by the Court. Similarly, at this meeting, the representatives offered to submit a copy of all the claims filed before the Attorney General’s Office, since the National Criminal Investigation Unit (Dirección Nacional de Investigación Criminal) was not aware of them. Furthermore, if “new events” occur, copies of the claims filed before the Attorney General’s office would be forwarded to the Human Rights Unit of the Secretary of State in the Security Department; c) In the period prior to the public hearing, the State has faced obstacles in implementing the provisional measures as well as in submitting the corresponding compliance reports every two months to the Tribunal. However, the State sustained that it was taking the pertinent steps to resolve these deficiencies and to create a Human Rights Department to strengthen its capacity to respond to these types of cases, and d) At the public hearing, the State reported that the Attorney General’s Office took several steps in the investigation, including taking statements from witnesses and requesting “phone call reports from the petitioners as well as with respect to the number from which the threatening calls were made. However, the beneficiary did not appear before the Attorney General’s Office to provide information that could be helpful in the investigation. The 4 See Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, Considering clause six, and Case of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility, supra note 1, Considering clause six. 3