gravity, urgency and need to prevent irreparable damage to persons. Any other fact or argument can only be analyzed and decided during consideration of the merits of a contentious case.4 7. The representatives did not submit observations on the State’s reports of October 6, 2010, and January 17, 2011 (supra third having seen paragraph). The last brief that the Court received from the representatives is dated April 28, 2010. Moreover, in their briefs, the representatives referred, among other matters, to facts that had already been analyzed in the Court’s order of April 3, 2009 (supra first having seen paragraph). Consequently, this order will take into account the information that the Court has in the case file of this matter, together with the information on alleged facts that occurred after the order of April 3, 2009. A. To maintain and adopt all necessary measures to continue protecting the life, and personal integrity and freedom of all the members of the communities that form part of the Kankuamo Indigenous People (first operative paragraph of the order of April 3, 2009). 8. The State indicated that this requirement is being implemented under the Human Rights Protection Program headed by the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, through its advisory body the Committee for Risk Assessment and Regulation (hereinafter “CRER”). These bodies recommend the most appropriate measures to protect an individual or a group of individuals, in this case the members of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. In its reports, the State has referred to the adoption of several physical measures of protection, both individual and collective, consisting basically of support for land transportation, as well as mobile communication systems (“avantel” and satellite), airplane tickets, and armored vehicles with escorts. According to the most recent information submitted by the State (supra second having seen paragraph), at a session held on February 22, 2011, CRER recommended “that the requests for physical measures of protection made by the indigenous peoples […] be assessed taking into account the differentiated approach, in keeping with the proposal to be presented by the representatives of this population.” Since physical measures of protection are temporary under Colombian laws, in February 2011, through CRER, the State asked “the representatives of the community to provide updated information regarding the leaders of the community, any new incidents that have occurred, and the corresponding court proceedings, in order to perform new and updated Technical Risk Assessments.” However, the State indicated that the Human Rights Protection Program is awaiting this information. In addition, it advised that, in order to guarantee the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of the measures, the No. 10 Engineers Mobility and Counter-mobility Battalion had carried out tactical missions to guarantee security in the area, and that a permanent connection has been set up with the community, by which the members of the Kankuamo Indigenous People can establish contact and submit their requests and complaints. Based on information provided by the National Police, the State indicated that, in 2010 and 2011, “no new incidents occurred in relation to the Kankuamo ethnic group, and the different actions taken are defined by respect for human rights.” Lastly, the State responded to specific facts indicated by the representatives (infra considering paragraphs 9 and 10).5 4 Cf. Case of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, tenth considering paragraph; Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 26, 2010, third considering paragraph, and Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 21, 2011, fourth considering paragraph. 5 Regarding the supposed “pamphlet” that was delivered to the offices of the Kankuamo Indigenous Organization in December 2009, the State indicated that the National Police was unaware of it, and that although it 3