Venezuela put forward the following considerations: a) due to the nature of the case in which the beneficiary is a witness, as well as the time elapsed since the accusation was filed, the beneficiary of the measures does not face any risk, especially since to date, she has not received any threats; b) from the moment these measures were ordered, the beneficiary has neither suffered nor alleged any type of attack against her personal integrity; c) the Governor of the State of Guárico has changed twice since the moment the facts that gave rise to these measures took place, and according to Registry and Supervision of Service and Custody sheet, the beneficiary of the protective measures was regularly in the Metropolitan Area of Caracas and in the State of Miranda - that is, outside the jurisdiction (State of Guárico) where the facts that gave rise to these measures allegedly occurred; d) the State has demonstrated its willingness to solve the case and strictly comply with the protective measure in favor of the beneficiary and e) the 49th Plenipotentiary Public Prosecutor's Office would still be commissioned to ensure effective compliance with the measures of protection, which have been strictly fulfilled. In particular, the State indicated that the instant case would be similar to that of provisional measures left in place for many years but then rescinded by the Court5 because their length of time was not justifiable given that the American Convention establishes that “said measures are provisional and may not be prolonged for an extended time without justification.” 18. The representatives reported that communication with the beneficiary has been limited and inconsistent for reasons beyond the control of the representatives, adding that the beneficiary “w[ould] not provide information on her whereabouts or information useful for systematically monitoring the status of compliance with the provisional measures or regarding her view point on the evolution of the risk that had led to the granting of the measures.” This situation seriously limits the representatives’ ability to provide support for their comments on the State’s reports. In particular, regarding compliance with the protective measures, in the last brief, the representatives abstained from issuing a statement given the lack of communication with the beneficiary, which "seriously limite[d] the possibility of knowing whether, in fact, the protective measures are being complied with and how so." Additionally, in relation to the investigations, the representatives pointed out that the State “limit[ed] itself to outlining procedural formalities, without mentioning whether the real risk has ceased.” Moreover, they indicated that even though it is true that the former governor of the State of Guárico left his post and investiture after the regional elections of November 2008, “no measures of restraint have been taken against him or any other officer of the police force involved in the attacks on the life and physical integrity of Mrs. […] Guerrero Galluci such that it could be assumed that they will not take part in a new act of retaliation against the beneficiary.” Regarding the cases mentioned by the State on which it based its arguments for requesting the rescission of these measures (supra footnote 5), the representatives argued that each case must be assessed according to its own circumstances of fact and context, given that the arguments of the State were intended to “create a sort of domino effect of recessions of each and every one of the provisional measures ordered [regarding] Venezuela, without taking into account the circumstances [...] of each case". Therefore, they asked the Court to maintain the measures. 19. The Commission argued that, in principle, it is appropriate to evaluate the time that has passed without threats or acts of harassment as an element to be assessed before a request for rescission of provisional measures. However, in matters like the present one, it is necessary to take an approach that takes into account other aspects, such as the risk 5 Cf. Cfr. Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, first operative paragraph, and Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, first operative paragraph. 7