5 information presented by the beneficiary coincided with that submitted by the State as regards the means, timetable and way in which the safety measures would be provided (supra tenth considering paragraph). In addition, Carlos Nieto Palma indicated that, prior to the hearing of October 24, 2007, he had visited the Nineteenth Court on October 18, 2007, to review the case file and had found several official records of interviews with him carried out by the Metropolitan Police in the course of their visits to provide him with security measures; these records “noted that they had interviewed [him], but the signature was different from [his] and the interview had not been carried out […]”; he therefore concluded that these records were false and worthless (supra fifth having seen paragraph). 15. That the Commission underscored that the “[…] an assessment by the State in the context of the security of the beneficiaries should be conducted together […]” with the beneficiaries and their representatives. It also indicated that, on October 24, 2007, and May 12, 2008, “police agents responsible for ensuring his security are alleged to have gone to the residence [of Mr. Nieto Palma] in order to harass him.” In addition, it evaluated the coordination measures between the parties, referring to the meeting held on March 14, 2008, between Carlos Nieto Palma and personnel of the El Hatillo Sub-Commissariat, in which several decisions were taken regarding implementation of the protection measures. Furthermore, the Commission noted that Mr. Nieto Palma had advised that, in some of the official records of visits forwarded by the State, his signature had been forged and that, even though he had reported this fact, the corresponding investigation had not been conducted. It added that the beneficiary rejected the State’s report that the protection visits by State agents were being carried out regularly. Lastly, it asked the Court to require the State to provide information on the status of the investigation into the forging of Carlos Nieto Palma’s signature in the official records monitoring the protection, the regularity with which the visits were made, and the beneficiary’s presence in his residence when they were made (supra sixth having seen paragraph). 16. That provisional measures are exceptional in nature; they are issued based on the needs for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained provided that the Court finds that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by them subsist.3 The Court notes that the extreme gravity and the threats must be assessed based on the specific context of those circumstances that, owing to their inherent nature, pose imminent danger. 17. That this Court observes that, in his brief of January 27, 2006, Carlos Nieto Palma stated that the threats that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures had ceased, but continued to be latent, owing to his work as a human rights activist (supra thirteenth considering paragraph), as established in the ninth considering paragraph of the Order of the Court of September 22, 2006 (supra second having seen paragraph). Despite the foregoing, Mr. Nieto Palma subsequently indicated, inter alia, that, on October 24, 2007, he was threatened by the officials responsible for his safety (although he did not give clear details of what these threats consisted of), and that the visits agreed at the meeting of March 24, 2008, had not been conducted. Lastly, he asked the Court to maintain the provisional measures. In its observations of June 23, 2008, the Commission also stated, inter alia, that Mr. Nieto Palma had alleged renewed acts of harassment against him (supra twelfth considering paragraph) without describing them. Meanwhile, the State has 3 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, third considering paragraph; Case of Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, thirteenth considering paragraph, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, seventh considering paragraph.