a) with regard to the necessity to maintain the provisional measures for the benefit of Eva Nieto Palma and John Carmelo Laicono Nieto, he “considers it unnecessary […] that [the] measures be maintained, since both have been residing for more than a year in the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, United States of America and only [travel] to Venezuela during holidays for a few days at a time […]”; b) with regard to the protective measures, these have been completely unfulfilled through the sporadic visits by the Metropolitan Police of the sector of Hatillo; c) the threats and the persecution by the Public Prosecutor’s Office Number 34, in which the Office insisted that he attend line-ups and provide more testimony, have ceased. 4. The briefs from the State of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela”), and their annexes, received on 15 December 2006, 6 February 2007, and 22 March 2007, which stated, inter alia, that: a) On 19 October 2006, the Forty-eighth Trial Court of Control of the Criminal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area endorsed the request of the Public Prosecurto to dismiss the complaint filed by Mr. Carlos Nieto Palma regarding acts of intimidation committed against him, considering that “there is insufficient evidence to serve as the basis to attribute to any person the commission of any crime, since there is only the complaint filed by the aggrieved party”; and b) concerning the protective measures ordered in favor of Carlos Nieto Palma and his next of kin, compliance with same can be confirmed through the police records and control sheets. The State has carried out the actions necessary to determine the facts denounced by the beneficiary. Likewise, the necessary protection has been provided and as a result, incidents such as those denounced have not been repeated. Consequently, the State considered that the circumstances that prompted the adoption of provisional measures no longer exist. 5. The briefs of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted on 1 February 2007, and 11 May 2007, which stated, inter alia, that: a) In regards to the situation of Eva Teresa Nieto Palma and John Carmelo Laicono, “given that the risk to the beneficiaries Eva Teresa Nieto Palma and Jonh Carmelo Laicono Nieto stemmed from their proximity to the beneficiary Carlos Nieto Palma so long as they were in Venezuelan territory, the Commission understands that said risk has ceased and accordingly, agrees that it is no longer necessary for them to receive such a benefit”; b) with regard to the duty to protect, the State has not submitted information that indicates the manner and frequency with which it is carrying out this duty; c) with regard to the duty to investigate the events that prompted the adoption of provisional measures, the Commission considered that “the investigation of the events is a necessary part of the eradication of risk”, given that, if the events are not clarified, the situation can be assumed to be one of impunity, which can serve as an incentive for repetition. “In every case, the importance of the investigation during provisional measure