3 irreparable damage to persons are met, provisional measures become a real jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.3 * * * 6. Regarding the obligation to maintain any previously enacted measures and to immediately take such steps as may be necessary to protect the beneficiaries’ rights to life and humane treatment (Operative Paragraph 1 of the Order of January 26, 2009, supra Having seen 2), the State reported that on February 18, 2009, it removed 12 of the 16 agents assigned to the protection of Fredy Peccerelli, Executive Director of the FAFG, and his family. The State noted that the Ministry of Governance decided “to vary the type of security measures provided them” due to “significant advances in the investigations into the case” and for the “the human resource deficit that the National Civil Police is presently facing.” The State also noted that security in place at the two headquarters of the FAFG is being provided under the auspices of eight agents from the National Civil Police in groups of four agents per shift; “security measures had also been assigned to the residences [of Messrs.] Omar Bertoni and Leonel Paiz.” Later, in its report of March 26, 2010, the State declared that it had 10 total security officers (including all shifts) providing protection in the following manner: one agent for each of two shifts for Tristán and Ashley Peccerelli Valle and Ms. Jeannette de Peccerelli, the children and wife of the FAFG Executive Director; one agent for each of two shifts for Ms. Bianka Peccerelli, the Director’s sister; and six agents for “the protection of Mr. Fredy Armando Peccerelli and the employees of the [FAFG], [...] with two at the main headquarters and two at the annex for each of two shifts, along with two others who relieve them.” The State stressed that “despite varying the number of assigned agents, it has not ceased providing protection to the beneficiaries.” 7. The representatives declared, among other things, that pursuant to a verbal order of the Ministry of Governance of February 17, 2009, “12 of the 16 individuals [...] who were providing personal protection to Mr. Fredy Peccerelli, his family, and to [Mr.] Leonel Paiz were removed,” and that “the option was given to keep four of those individuals who, at Mr. Peccerelli’s request, were assigned to [his] sister and wife [...] with the main intention of protecting his minor children.” The representatives noted that since the four agents work in shifts, [in] reality only one agent accompanies them per shift.” In their January 28, 2010 comment referring to the State’s contention that 10 agents are assigned to the beneficiaries’ protection, the representatives indicated that “there are really only six agents [...], for reasons of shift assignment.” In their brief of May 20, 2010, the representatives declared that “at this moment, neither Mr. Fredy Peccerelli nor Mr. Omar Girón have personal protection,” which “has been repeatedly requested ever since the last threat and the events of April 13, 2010.” The representatives are of the position that these actions on the part of the State “detail [...] the lack of compliance [...] concerning its obligations before the Court.” They also noted that they have requested “greater perimetric support and the assignment of more agents to relieve the current personnel.” In this regard, the representatives requested that the State clarify the information it furnished on the “Security Protection Scheme” and the risk assessment study ostensibly carried out on the beneficiaries. In particular, they sought information on: the identity of the person in charge of the study’s risk analysis, the procedure followed for its implementation, how much prior notice is given to the beneficiary, the notification procedure for the analysis, the parameters utilized, and the general action strategy in response to these 3 Cf. Case of “La Nación” Newspaper. Provisional Measures regarding Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2001, Considering clause four; Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering clause four; and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico, supra note 2, Considering clause four.