In addition, in January 2011, an attempt was made on the life of Néstor Caudi Barrios, another beneficiary protected by the provisional measures. The Court reiterates that all this represents grave non-compliance by the State with the provisions of Article 63(2) of the American Convention. 12. The Court takes note of the initiation of investigative activities with regard to the death of the beneficiary Roni Barrios Alzul, according to information provided by the State during the public hearing. However, in notes that Venezuela has not provided any information on the measures it may have adopted to prevent the said fact or on the measures of protection it had adopted in favor of the said beneficiary in order to protect his life and personal integrity in view of the danger that another act such as this one might occur. The Court recalls that compliance with the provisional measures depends on the effective implementation of measures of protection in favor of the beneficiaries, so that the danger ceases for the persons whose protection is sought.12 In this regard, it notes that, as at the time of the murders of Jorge Antonio Barrios and Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios,13 the State has merely presented information on the investigative measures that have been initiated, without providing detailed information on the measures of protection that it had adopted or would adopt within the framework of these provisional measures to prevent this type of act from continuing to occur. 13. In this regard, the Court recalls that, according to information provided by the State, during a hearing held at the domestic level on March 7, 2012, it was agreed to end the measures of protection in favor of Orismar Carolina Alzul and her respective family group, which presumably included her son, Roni Barrios Alzul, also a beneficiary of these measures.14 After evaluating the situation based on which it was agreed to end these measures, the Court considered it necessary to maintain the provisional measures in favor of Orismar Carolina Alzul, and ordered the State to re-establish the measures of protection that were required to protect her life and personal integrity, and to provide the Court with information in this regard.15 This stipulation was additional and complementary to the Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 64, 68, 95 and 96. 12 Cf. Matter of Juan Almonte Herrera et al. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of March 24, 2010, sixteenth considering paragraph, and Case of the Barrios Family. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, fortieth considering paragraph. 13 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, thirty-second considering paragraph. 14 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 13, 2013, seventh considering paragraph. 15 According to the information provided by the State, the termination of the measures of protection in favor of Orismar Carolina Alzul was decided owing to a supposed rejection of these measures by the beneficiary herself. Based on this alleged renunciation, the State requested that the provisional measures in favor of the said beneficiary be lifted. The Court decided this request in its Order of February 13, 2013. In this regard, in the said Order, the Court decided not to lift the measures granted in favor of this beneficiary based on a sworn statement in which Orismar Carolina Alzul “refute[d] the content of the document presented by the Public Prosecution Service,” according to which she had refused the measures. As decided in the said Order, this sworn statement was sufficient evidence prima facie to doubt the alleged rejection of the provisional measures granted by this Court. In addition, the Court emphasized that, in a situation such as the one that exists in this case, it is essential that the State and the representatives adopt the necessary measures to ensure that a rejection of the measures of protection constitutes a duly informed decision, which would appear not to have been the case when the State interviewed the beneficiary and she supposedly rejected them. Therefore, in view of the characteristics of the danger to which the beneficiaries of these provisional measures have been exposed and the fact that the State has not conducted or provided the objective risk assessment studies of the beneficiary (which the Court has been asking the State to provide since 2010), the Court did not find it admissible to lift the provisional measures granted in favor of Orismar Carolina Alzul. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family. 6