attention to the circumstances of the specific case 6, so that the legal and procedural balance between the parties are not affected. 7 Thus, the Court considers that, with even greater reason, the formalities present in domestic judicial proceedings cannot be required within the framework of provisional measures proceedings. This Court recalls that when ordering measures of protection, the Court or its President may apply the principle of prima facie assessment of a case, which sometimes requires the application of presumptions when considering protection needs. 8 Consequently, the Court considers that the sworn statement of Mrs. Orismar Carolina Alzul, provided by the representatives, is sufficient evidence to question prima facie her alleged decision to renounce the provisional measures granted by this Court. Also, while it is true that the representatives did not provide a sworn statement by Mrs. Yelitza Lugo Pelaes, the Court considers that the assertions by her representatives, along with those of Mrs. Alzul in her statement, are sufficient evidence to prima facie cast doubt on her alleged decision to renounce the protection measures, bearing in mind that the interviews with both beneficiaries were carried out in the same circumstances, by the same official of the Victims’ Assistance Unit of the Attorney General’s Office and, apparently, without the beneficiaries having been properly informed of the purpose of the interview. 15. The Court recalls that in its last three Orders it has required the State to conduct an “assessment of the situation of risk of each of the beneficiaries” 9. However, based on the transcripts of the interviews conducted with the beneficiaries, and on other information provided, the Court finds no evidence that Venezuela conducted an objective analysis of the situation of risk facing those beneficiaries, beyond directly asking them whether they had received any threats or felt they were at risk. The Court finds that it is not consistent with the nature of the risk to which the beneficiaries of these provisional measures have been exposed, that the State should have questioned them regarding their wish to continue with these, without previously having conducted a comprehensive assessment of their situation of risk, bearing in mind that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to which members of the Barrios family have been exposed has not necessarily materialized as individualized and prior threats to the acts of violence of which several of its members have been victims. Furthermore, the Court notes that, in a situation such as this case, it is indispensable that the State and the representatives adopt the measures necessary to ensure that any decision to renounce measures of protection is an informed decision. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the transcripts of the interviews conducted by the State do not show that the purpose of the interview was explained to the beneficiaries or that they were informed of their rights as beneficiaries of provisional measures. On the contrary, according to the sworn statement of Mrs. Orismar Carolina Alzul, she was misinformed on this matter. 16. Consequently, having examined the facts and circumstances in which Yelitza Lugo Pelaes and Orismar Carolina Alzul supposedly renounced these provisional measures, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient information to grant the State’s request to lift the measures issued in their favor. The Court recalls that if a State requests the lifting or modification of the provisional measures ordered, it must present sufficient evidence and arguments to allow the Court to conclude that the risk or threat no longer meets the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency 6 Cf., inter alia, Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 33, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. ("In vitro Fertilization ") v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 58. 7 Cf. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. ("Fertilization in vitro") v. Costa Rica, para. 58. 8 Cf. Case of Raxcaco Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of August 30, 2004, Considering para. 10, and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of October 25, 2012, Considering para. 24. 9 Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Order of the Court of November 25, 2010, Operative Paragraph 5; Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Order of the Court of February 21, 2011, Operative Paragraph 5, and Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Order of the Court of July 5, 2011, Operative Paragraph 5. 6