4 further threats” and that “the absence of acts of intimidation results from the fact that they rely on elements that preserve their security and personal protection.” 12. That, finally, Mr. Abraham Méndez-García informed that on January 12, 2009 “several people came to [his] house saying they had [an] authorization to carry out an ‘entry and search’, and produced a simple sheet of paper without a letterhead.” According to Mr. Méndez, “this fact coincides, quite strangely, with the hearing held before the Inter-American Court [...] and the telephone calls made to [the representatives]." 13. That the Commission expressed that it agreed with the State and the representatives “as regards the fact that the reactivation of the investigation may lead to a situation of extreme risk of irreparable damage to the beneficiaries", although it believes that "regardless of the reopening of the investigation, risks continue to exist." According to the Commission, "the fact that certain provisional measures may have been in force for a long time – as is the case with several measures ordered by the Court – does not […] provide grounds for lifting said measures. Contrariwise, the Commission believes that provisional measures should be maintained for as long as the original circumstances that led to their adoption prevail. Hence, the standard is the continuity of the need for protection.” * ** 14. That Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that for the Court to order the adoption of provisional measures three conditions must be met: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”, and iii) an attempt to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in all the situations in which the intervention of the Tribunal is requested. Likewise, said conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection it has ordered. If one of them ceases to exist, the Tribunal has to assess whether or not continuation of the ordered protection is appropriate. 15. That, upon ordering the protective measures, the Court or its president do not need, in principle, evidence of the facts that, prima facie, appear to meet the requirements of Article 63. However, for the protective measures to be maintained, the Court has to assess the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage that gave rise to the measures,3 on the basis of information of evidentiary value. 16. That the Tribunal has noted that provisional measures are of a twofold nature: precautionary and protective.4 The precautionary nature of provisional measures is connected to the framework of international adversarial cases. In this regard, the purpose and goal of said measures is to preserve the rights that are at risk until the dispute is settled. The purpose and goal is to guarantee the integrity and effectiveness of the decision on the merits, thus preventing the rights at issue from being infringed, a situation that may render the final decision innocuous or hamper its effective 3 Cfr. Matter of Pueblo Indígena de Kankuamo. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, considering clause seven; and Case of Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, considering clause thirty two. 4 Cfr. Case of Herrera Ulloa. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Court of September 7, 2001, considering clause four; Case of López-Álvarez et al. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, considering clause three, and Matter of Fernández-Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of April 30, 2009, considering clause five.