6 b) “the evidence relied on by the beneficiaries’ representatives to argue that [the facts that caused the measures to be ordered] have been duly proven are based, mainly, on media reports,” and c) all of the facts raised by the representatives in support of these measures “took place […] within the same timespan, and thus it can be said that the beneficiaries have already enjoyed almost three years without their […] lives […] being in impending danger, a contingency that does not materialize by the mere occurrence of a few people throwing flyers against […] Marta Colomina out on the street.” 18. The April 10, 2006 comments of the representatives and the appendixes thereto, whereby they stated, inter alia, that: a) “the mere passing of time is not sufficient to assert that the extreme gravity of the threat has already subsided;” b) The State has not clearly indicated which measures it has adopted to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders, and c) The representatives were summoned by and appeared before “Tribunal 42º de Primera Instancia en Función de Control del Circuito Judicial Penal del Área Metropolitana de Caracas” (Forty-Second Investigating Lower Court for the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area) and insisted on the fact that the measures of protection were mandatory and that such court was not in charge of controlling, modifying or suspending the measures or their enforcement. 19. The April 21, 2006 comments of the Inter-American Commission, wherein it stated, inter alia, that: a) “in its report the State has failed to indicate which measures of protection it has currently in place for the benefit of the beneficiaries;” b) Venezuela has not supplied information regarding the duty to have the beneficiaries involved in the implementation of the provisional measures; c) the information submitted shows that the investigations have not been reopened and that “solving the case [...] is a necessary step towards removing the risk,” and d) noticed, based on the appendixes to the representatives’ communications, that the image of Marta Colomina is being shown on television, and she is being described as a fascist, pro-coup enthusiast, a terrorist and an enemy of the revolution, which is cause of concern. It believes that the State should view such occurrences “as possible elements of risk.” Furthermore, it argued that the risk cannot be said to have been eliminated, which is why it requested that the Court order that the measures be maintained in force.