37. The State indicated that the Constitutional Court had a Special Supervisory Chamber that monitors compliance with the orders it issues in relation to the measures of protection ordered in favor of the communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó, among others. In addition, within the framework of the measures of protection ordered by the Constitutional Court, Colombia indicated that, at an institutional level, the Ministry of the Interior, “based on its leading role in the land restitution process,” heads the design, coordination and implementation of the Comprehensive Attention, Prevention and Protection Plan, which is also “permanently supported and monitored by the State organs of control (Ombudsman’s Office and Attorney General’s Office) and the international community.” Similarly, it indicated that it had made progress in establishing an integrated protection and prevention plan for the communities, with clear guidelines concerning risks that require attention. This plan establishes short-, medium- and long-term actions for the prevention of human rights violations, “organized by the moment of prevention (early, urgent and guarantee of non-repetition).” In addition, the Attorney General’s Office had set up a special committee to support the Afro-descendant and indigenous communities of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó river basins, in compliance with the Decision of May 18, 2010. Lastly, the State indicated that the Head of the Urabá Police Department had prepared an action plan to respond to the provisions of the said Decision 299, in order to ensure the protection of the rights of the Afro-descendant population of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó river basins, with collective measures such as the provision of four launches and six communal jeeps, as well as individual measures “designed for different leaders, including Enrique Petro (protection plan) [and] Ligia María Chaverra (protection plan).” E.1.6. Additional information that the State considered relevant 38. Colombia referred to investigations conducted by the Prosecutor General’s Office. It indicated that, through the National Directorate of Prosecutors’ Offices, the re-assignment had been requested of the proceedings underway for violations of the rights of members of the communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó, “appointing delegate prosecutors before the specialized criminal circuit judges attached to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit and/or the National Crimes involving Forced Displacement and Disappearance Unit,” in order to implement investigation strategies that contributed to an appropriate approach to the procedures and to allow those responsible for the said violations to be brought to justice expeditiously. In addition, according to the State, the International Affairs Directorate of the Prosecutor General’s Office is monitoring investigations and inquiries involving victims who are members of the communities of Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó. E.2. Observations of the representatives 39. The representatives indicated that maintaining the provisional measures merely depended on whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persisted, or whether new equally grave and urgent circumstances warranted maintaining them, as established by the Court. In this regard, they indicated that the reasons that justified the adoption of these provisional measures continued to be valid, as they had been informing the Court. They emphasized that this situation of extreme gravity faced by the beneficiaries “is related to the exercise of their right to the restitution of the lands from which they were forcibly displaced, and the demand for truth, justice and integral reparation.” They also indicated that, even though “definition of the ownership of those rights and the State’s non-compliance with its obligations in this regard are matters that exceed the sphere of the provisional measures […,] the situation of risk of the beneficiaries is related to the decision to remain on the territory and claim their rights […].” Among the risk factors, the representatives referred in detail to: the “persistence of the 16