9. The Court observes that although the Inter-American Commission forwarded information on attacks allegedly suffered by a relative of one of the beneficiaries, it is not evident from this information that the said acts have any relationship to the alleged facts that led the Court to adopt these provisional measures. For their part, neither the beneficiaries nor their representatives provided any information on the next of kin of the beneficiaries for whom the expansion had been requested. Consequently, the Court has no information on “the individual situation, the existence, the nature, and the origin or source of the respective risk of the next of kin mentioned in the InterAmerican Commission’s expansion request,” as required in the sixth operative paragraph of the Order of September 21, 2009, that would permit retaining the provisional measures with regard to them. c) Conclusion 10. Article 63 of the Convention requires the presence of three conditions to enable the Court to order provisional measures: (a) extreme gravity”; (b) urgency,” and (c) that they are required “to avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions are co-existent and must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Similarly, these three conditions must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. If one of them is no longer in effect, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 11. When ordering measures of protection, the Court or whoever presides it, does not require, in principle, evidence of the facts that prima facie appear to comply with the requirements of Article 63(2) of the Convention. However, to the contrary, maintaining protection measures requires the Court to evaluate the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and the urgency of avoiding irreparable damage that gave rise to them,3 based on probative information.4 12. These measures were ordered owing to the prima facie assessment of a threat to the rights to life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries established in the Order of the President of the Court at the time dated August 24, 2009. 13. However, when adopting this Order, the Court notes and weighs that the requirement of forwarding information in order to maintain these provisional measures has not been complied with. Indeed, the Court recalls that the beneficiaries and their representatives have not responded satisfactorily to the reiterated requests for information sent by the Court since the adoption of these provisional measures (supra having seen paragraphs 9, 10 and 12); thus, the Court does not have the minimum 3 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenouos People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, seventh considering paragraph; Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2010, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to the Argentine Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, fortieth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fifteenth considering paragraph; Matters of the Monagas Detention Center (“La Pica”); the Capital Region Penitentiary Center Yare I and Yare II (Yare Prison); the Occidental Region Penitentiary Center (Uribana Prison), and the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II. Provisional measures with regard to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra nota 3, fortieth considering paragraph. 5