16 conditions for lifting the measures are still not right and asked that the measures be maintained "for a reasonable period" until the Court has better informational elements toward lifting them. 39. The Court recalls that when handing down protective measures, the standard of the Tribunal or its head for evaluating these requirements is prima facie, as on occasion the application of assumptions is necessary given the need for protection.16 Without prejudice to this, maintaining protective measures requires the Court to perform a more rigorous evaluation of the persistence of the situation that led to the measures. 17 Should the State request the lifting or modification of the provisional measures ordered, it must present sufficient evidence and argumentation allowing for the Tribunal to see that the risk or the threat no longer meets the standards of extreme gravity and urgency of avoiding irreparable damage. At the same time, the burden of the beneficiaries and the Commission to present evidence and pleadings increases with the passage of time and the lack of new threats. Certainly the fact that new threats do not arise can be due precisely to the effectiveness of the protection provided or the deterrence of the threats with the Tribunal's order. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has considered that the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats or intimidation, added to a lack of risk, can lead to the lifting of the provisional measures.18 40. At the same time, the Court must take into account that, in keeping with the preamble of the American Convention, international protection under the Convention “reinforc[es] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” Thus, on confirming that the State in question has established effective protective mechanisms or taken effective protective actions for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Tribunal can decide to lift the provisional measures and place the obligation to protect on the party principally responsible, that being the State.19 Upon the Court lifting the provisional measures for this reason, it is up to the State, in keeping with its duty to guarantee human rights, to maintain the protective measures that it has adopted and that the Tribunal found effective during a period of time warranted by the circumstances. 16 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of August 30, 2004, Considering 10; Matter of Fernández Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of April 30, 2009, Considering 14, and and Matter of Centro Penitenciario de Aragua "Cárcel de Tocorón.” Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 11, 2010, Considering 14. 17 Cf. Matter of the Indígena Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, Considering 7; Matter of A.J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Court of September 21, 2009, Considering 18, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of September 2, 2010, Considering 26. 18 Cf. Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of July 11, 2007, Considering 11; Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, Considering 14; Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009, Considering 40, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra footnote 18, Considering 28. 19 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 20, 2003, Considering 13; Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of February 2, 2007, Considering 12, and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering 21.