5. These measures were ordered based on the prima facie assessment of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in relation to the rights to life and to personal integrity of the beneficiary owing to his alleged disappearance while in the State’s custody. The events that gave rise to these measures consist in the fact that Mr. Natera, who was deprived of liberty in the “El Dorado” Oriental Region Prison, Bolívar State, was allegedly disappeared as of November 8, 2009, when his mother had a last telephone conversation with him. In addition, several testimonies have indicated that, on that date, at approximately 10.30 a.m., Mr. Natera was in the prison walking near the entrance gate, when several member of the National Guard led by a captain beat him and forced him into a black Ford car. When ordering the State to adopt measures, it was also noted that the next of kin and his representatives had denounced the incident to various State authorities including: (a) the Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Prosecution Service with competence for Fundamental Rights of the city of Bolívar; (b) the Prosecutor General; (c) the National Prison Services Directorate, and (d) the Court with Supervisory Powers of the Second Circuit of the Criminal Judicial Circumscription of Bolívar State. The Inter-American Court had not been advised of any specific progress or results as a result of these actions that would allow what happened to Mr. Natera or his whereabouts to be determined. Thus, the Court considered that its intervention in this matter in order to avert the threat could not be delayed. 6. In this regard, the Court recalled that, whenever there are convincing reasons to suspect that a person has been subjected to disappearance, the prompt and immediate action of the judicial and prosecution authorities is essential, ordering opportune and necessary measures aimed at determining the whereabouts of the victim or the place where he may be deprived of liberty. 6 Also, it emphasized that, in situations of deprivation of liberty such as those of this case, among the essential judicial guarantees, habeas corpus represented the appropriate mechanism to determine the situation and whereabouts of Mr. Natera, as well as to ensure respect for his life and to protect his personal integrity. 7 7. In view of the fact that three years and eight months have elapsed since the adoption of the provisional measures in favor of the beneficiary, and based on the nature of the events that gave rise to their adoption, the Court finds it opportune to examine the status of the implementation of these measures in order to decide whether it is necessary to maintain them in force. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that, owing to its competence, in the context of provisional measures the Court must only consider arguments that are strictly and directly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. 8. Considering, also, that, in this matter, there is no related individual petition being processed before the Commission, as the Commission has advised (supra having seen paragraphs 8 and 11), the Court must ensure that the provisional measures are not distorted in the sense that they are being used to obtain what should be achieved by means of a contentious case. 8 Therefore, the only admissible analysis is limited to the protective nature of Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, forty-fourth considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 1, 2010, thirteenth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Matter of Natera Balboa, supra note 6, thirteenth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Guerrero Gallucci. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2011, twenty-ninth considering paragraph. 4