9 to make effective the present provisional measures when temporary returns to Colombia on the part of the beneficiaries take place. For this, the Tribunal requests the State to present information about this point in the next State report that is submitted to the Tribunal. Likewise the Tribunal solicits the representatives to refer particularly to this point in their written observations. * * * 26. That respecting the situation of the persons that reside in Colombia, meaning: María Elena Soler, Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez Rubiano and Leydi Caterin Gutiérrez Peña, the proportioned information during the private hearing and in the previous briefs is not clear nor sufficient in order to deduce which will be the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency and of suffering irreparable harm. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court observes that the State and the representatives reached an agreement about the measures of protection to be offered in favor of these persons. In particular, it is observed that the Committee of Regulation and Evaluation of Risks (CRER), an entity of State character, recommended that the measures of protection be ratified for Mrs. María Elena Soler Gutiérrez (supra Considering 14). 27. That, taking into account the aforementioned, the Tribunal considers it timely to maintain the present provisional measures in relation to the beneficiaries that reside in Colombia, meaning: María Elena Soler de Gutiérrez, Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez Rubiano and Leydi Caterin Gutiérrez Peña. The Court will evaluate and will supervise the effectiveness of the measures of protection accorded between the State and the representatives of the beneficiaries in relation with those that reside in Colombia, for which it hopes that the information presented and the observations of the parties in this respect refer to this point in detail. In this respect, it is fitting to reiterate that regarding a matter of provisional measures, it follows that the Court will consider only and strictly those arguments that relate directly with extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damages to persons.11 * * * 28. That respecting the obligation to investigate the acts that originated the present measures, the representatives signaled that “the best way to evaluate the risk and to know if it still exists or not in a determined case is through the explanation of the acts that provoked the prima facie assessment of a grave and urgent risk.” Likewise, they indicated that, “the analysis of the investigations that are carried out regarding provisional measures is an analysis focused exclusively in determining if as a product of the investigation it can be concluded that there now does not exist the risk that gave place to the measures.” 29. That the investigation of the acts that originated the present provisional measures are understood in the inquiries that must be carried out by the State authorities in 11 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad & Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering sixth; Matter of Luis Uzcategui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, Considering twenty-first; and Matter of Fernandez Ortega et al., supra note 2, Considering eighteenth.