5 application. Hence, provisional measures enable the State concerned to comply with the final decision and, if applicable, to go ahead with the reparations so ordered.5 As regards the protective nature of provisional measures, this Court has pointed out that they are a true judicial guarantee of a preventive nature, since, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons, they protect human rights.6 17. That in the instant case the representatives remarked that “for a provisional measure to be lifted there must have been a change in the situation of extreme gravity and urgency initially verified by the Court” and that “the party requesting the modification or lifting has the burden of proof with regard to said change in the situation. If such information is missing, provisional measures ought to be maintained.” According to the representatives, “the fact [that] a significant amount of time has elapsed without new threats or acts of harassment or violence being targeted at the beneficiaries could be taken into account as a factor to assess whether risks have diminished or ceased. Nevertheless, [...] it should be neither the only factor nor a major one." 18. That the Court shares the representatives’ view that if a State requests the lifting or modification of the ordered provisional measures, it ought to produce enough evidence and arguments to enable the Court to realize that the risks or threats no longer meet the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage. In turn, the representatives of the beneficiaries who want the measures to be maintained have to file evidence of the reasons supporting their position. 19. That the Court acknowledges that a lack of threats does not necessarily imply that there exist no risks for a person. However, if a certain amount of time elapses without any threats, the Court has to analyze the causes of said absence of threats to determine whether it is appropriate to maintain the provisional measures, taking into account that they should be of a provisional and temporary nature. 20. That the Commission has held that one of the reasons for the absence of threats is that "the adopted [provisional] measures may have contributed towards the protection of the beneficiaries.” 21. That, in this regard, the Court should bear in mind that, pursuant to the Preamble of the American Convention, international protection of a conventional nature should reinforce or complement the protection afforded by the domestic law of American states. Thus, if it is proved that the State involved has developed effective mechanisms or measures to protect the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Court may decide to lift the provisional measures and impose the obligation to provide said protection on the body that is duly responsible for it, that is, the State. It is worth reiterating that this decision belongs to the Court and not to the State, since it would be unacceptable to subject the mechanism set forth in the American Convention to restrictions rendering the role of the Court, and hence the human rights protection 5 Cfr. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, considering clause seven; Matter of "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia" Newspapers. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, considering clause twenty-three, and Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, considering clause nineteen. 6 Cfr. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, supra note 5, considering clause eight; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, considering clause forty-five; and Matter of Fernández-Ortega et al., supra note 4, considering clause five.