5. That in International Human Rights Law, provisional measures are not only precautionary in nature, given that they preserve a legal situation, but are also fundamentally protective in nature inasmuch as they protect human rights, because they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. So long as the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency are met, as well as the prevention of irreparable damages to persons, provisional measures become a judicial guarantee that is truly preventive in nature.3 6. That in International Human Rights Law, urgent and provisional measures also serve the purpose of protecting basic human rights by preventing irreparable damage to persons. 7. That provisional measures are ordered only in emergency situations, in response to the need for protection, and, once ordered, should remain in effect so long as the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the avoidance of irreparable damage to the rights of persons protected by them continue to exist. 8. That in accordance with the Order of the Inter-American Court of September 22, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause 2) the State should, inter alia: maintain the measures that it would have adopted and to take forthwith such other measures necessary to effectively protect the life, physical integrity, and personal liberty of Carlos Nieto Palma, as well as the lives and physical integrity of Yvonne Palma Sánchez, Eva Teresa Nieto Palma and John Carmelo Laicono Nieto; allow the beneficiaries to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures, and keep them informed regarding the progress made to comply with the measures ordered by the Court, and to submit to the Court the requested reports. 9. That in the Order of the Court of September 22, 2006, the beneficiaries of the provisional measures or their representative were requested to provide specific and detailed information on the need to maintain the provisional measures in favor of Eva Teresa Nieto Palma and John Carmelo Laicono Nieto (supra Having Seen clause 2). 10. That Mr. Carlos Nieto Palma has reported, inter alia, that he considers it unnecessary to maintain the protection measures in favor of Eva Teresa Nieto Palma and John Carmelo Laicono Nieto inasmuch as both have been residing for more than a year in the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, United States of America, and that they only travel to Venezuela during holidays for a few days at a time (supra Having Seen clause 3). 11. That the Inter-American Commission observed that, given that the risk to the beneficiaries Eva Teresa Nieto Palma and John Carmelo Laicono Nieto, which stemmed from their proximity to the beneficiary Carlos Nieto Palma so long as they were in Venezuelan territory, and understood that said risk has ceased and therefore agreed that it was no longer necessary for them to continue enjoying this benefit (supra Having Seen clause 5). Cfr. Matter of Ramirez Hinostroza et al. Provisional measures. supra Note 1, fifth considering clause; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures, supra Note 1, sixth considering clause, and Matter of Adrian Melendez Quijano et al. Provisional measures. supra Note 2, fifth considering clause. 3