extreme or urgent.17 Furthermore, the Court has stated that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings in relation to the facts that gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures correspond to the examination of the merits of the case.18 Given that in this instant case, and as the Commission reported on August 27, 2007, there is not “a petition directly related to proceedings before the Commission,” the Court must ensure that the provisional measures are not denatured in the sense of being used to achieve a purpose that should be achieved through litigation.19 In sum, non-compliance with the duty to investigate is not, per se, a sufficient reason to maintain the provisional measures.20 30. Finally, the Commission argued that Ms. Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci’s “capacity to continue her work as a human rights defender and the context faced by human rights defenders meet the standard of irreparability of consequences that the granting of the provisional measures seeks to avoid.” Regarding this, it is the Court’s view that a pleading based on a specific context is not per se sufficient to warrant keeping provisional measures in place if there are no specific facts that would allow the Court to reach solid conclusions on the effects of that context on the specific matter at hand.21 31. The Court notes that without prejudice to the fact that they have asked that the instant provisional measures be maintained subsequent to the State’s request they be rescinded, the representatives reported that communication with the beneficiary has been limited and scattered, and that the beneficiary would not present information on her whereabouts or her viewpoint regarding the evolution of the risk that gave rise to the adoption of the measures (supra Considering 18). Consequently, the Tribunal does not have information regarding the beneficiary’s current situation of risk that would prove the existence of the alleged situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage. Likewise, this Court notes that the information provided does not offer any indications of an interest or wish on the part of the beneficiary to keep these provisional measures in force. 32. Finally, over the past four years, the Court has not been kept informed with specific information on specific situations of risk that the beneficiary has faced. In the same sense, the Tribunal finds that the hypothetical risk of threats against her for her participation in domestic criminal proceedings and a failure to clarify the facts that gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in this case are not sufficient to conclude that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency exists that is likely to cause her irreparable harm persists.22 In this sense, the Tribunal finds that the parties have not submitted information to demonstrate that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage that existed at the moment the provisional measures were ordered in favor of Mrs. Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci still persists; therefore, it is appropriate to rescind the provisional 17 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering 24, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra footnote 6, Considering 22. 18 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering 14, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra footnote 6, Considering 22. 19 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al, supra footnote 5, Considering 4. 20 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al, supra footnote 5, Considering 17, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra footnote 5, Considering 21. 21 Cf. Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al, supra footnote 5, Considering 19, and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al., supra footnote 5, Considering 24. 22 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra footnote 6, Considering 23. 11