10 29. Without detriment to the foregoing, the Tribunal also notes that the representatives have informed that Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza was summoned to declare in another proceeding related to the alleged acts of torture to which he was a witness (supra Considering clause 22) and for that reason, the threats and acts of harassment against them would continue, "using illegal means to intimidate him, such as telephone calls and others", in order to prevent him from appearing to testify against the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity.” 30. The Court does not have sufficient information regarding the alleged threats received that would be connected to this last proceeding in order to evaluate the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza and his next-of-kin. In that respect, the Court recalls that if a State requests the rescission or modification of provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal, the State must present sufficient evidence and argument that would allow the Tribunal assessing that the risk or threat is no longer of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage. Moreover, the representatives of the beneficiaries who want the measures to continue shall present evidence of the reasons for it.9 31. In view of the foregoing and taking into account the temporary nature of the provisional measures and that such measures have been extended for more than four years, in order to assess the need to maintain them, it is essential for the representatives to forward, no later than March 17, 2010, updated and detailed information on: a) the progress made in the proceeding instituted before the Second Criminal Chamber of Lima, case file N° 733-08, in which Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza would be a witness, and the time limits established in the main procedural stages; b) the documentation proving the relation of Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza in his capacity as witness to said proceeding and, c) the risk circumstances in the life and physical integrity of said beneficiary and his next-ofkin in relation to said proceeding. Specially, it is necessary for the representatives to forward detailed information and, if possible, to include evidence of the new acts of threats that Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza would have suffered (supra Considering clause 22). 32. In relation to the beneficiaries Raúl Ángel Ramos De la Torre and César Manuel Saldaña Ramírez, counsels of Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza, the Court recalls that they "pointed out that certain threatening events and situations had occurred that jeopardized […] the commencement of the criminal proceedings conducted against Luis Pérez-Documet, retired general, for the crime of kidnapping against Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza”10, and that it was precisely for such reason that the Tribunal considered, on said occasion, "[…] prima facie that said individuals were in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency.” The Tribunal already noted that said proceeding is closed (supra Considering clause 25). Moreover, the Court has not received, in more than a year, information on the facts that would suggest that there is a still a situation that calls for the enforcement of provisional measures, or that the capacity as witness of Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza in the new proceeding had resulted in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in relation to his counsels. 9 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 6, considering clause eighteen; Case of Helen Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, considering clause five; and Case of the Integrantes del Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial (ECAP), Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre, supra note 6, considering clause five. 10 Cf. Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2007; Considering Clause eleven.