8 [7] shifts” (eight hours daily, [seven] days a week). They added that the beneficiary estimates that such provisional measures should be maintained in his favor “until the location of Mr. Juan Valencia Osorio, who is still at large for the assassination of Myrna Mack, is determined or until he is captured”. In turn, in its communication of June 18, 2008, the Commission expressed that it did not have information allowing the Commission to give an opinion about Mr. Romero Rivera. The State indicated that, in relation to the security of Luis Roberto Romero Rivera, the Foundation had affirmed in a communication of July 15, 2008 sent to the Court that the security measures were being complied with satisfactorily. 23. That regarding beneficiary Luis Roberto Romero, the Court considers that the information provided by the parties shows that the implementation of the provisional measures has been carried out satisfactorily. Nevertheless, this Tribunal requires that the representatives and the Commission provide clear and accurate information evidencing a case of extreme gravity and urgency representing an imminent risk directly related to the facts giving rise to the measures, in order to assess the pertinence of maintaining the measures in favor of such beneficiary. In turn, the State is required to provide the information it may deem pertinent about this matter. 24. That regarding Mr. Jorge Guillermo Lemus Alvarado and each one of his relatives protected by the measures, the representatives have not given a specific and concrete opinion about the present situation of extreme gravity and urgency of such beneficiaries but the representatives have only reproduced the declarations by Mr. Lemus Alvarado. To that end, the representatives pointed out that in the briefs of November 25, 2005 and February 16, 2006, Mr. Lemus Alvarado expressed that he had been discriminated since PLAMAR (Action Plan to Modernize and Promote Agriculture at Risk), an agency of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, had denied him a financing credit. On November 15, 2005, there was an attempt to kidnap his son, Jehú Israel Lemus Hernández; on that same day an order placed by Bansefor (Forestry Seed Bank) from INAB (National Woods Institute) for the seeds he produces had been cancelled. Likewise, Mr. Lemus Alvarado made reference to some alleged facts that occurred on February 1, 7, 12 and 13, 2006, among which are the following: a horse that belonged to his son was killed in his property; the back window of his car was hit by shots from a “small caliber rifle” (probably 22); and alleged members of a peasant group on board a pick-up truck attacked him and tried to kidnap him. He affirmed that when his 15-year-old son tried to help him he was also attacked and the alleged members of the Gua 11066 patrol passed by making threatening signs. The representatives warned that the beneficiary considers it necessary that “the measures are maintained due to the attacks suffered by him and his children”. Lastly, in the observations of July 15, 2008, the representatives indicated that according to Mr. Lemus Alvarado, the latter made a peaceful protest opposite Banco Crédito Hipotecario Nacional for 6 months and that “[in May 2008] he abandoned such protest due to the high degree of vulnerability to his physical integrity that such protest represented”. 25. That in turn, the Commission observed that the State had not provided updated information about the situation of this beneficiary and considered that in the meantime it was necessary for the State to maintain the measures ordered in his favor. It must be pointed out that the Commission has made no specific evaluation about the situation of extreme gravity and urgency of the beneficiary. 26. That in several briefs, the State expressed that the facts reported by Mr. Lemus [Alvarado] bear no relation whatsoever with the provisional measures or the facts giving rise to them (supra Having Seen clause 6), and indicated that such facts have