parties to better implement the measures that are effective to ensure the rights of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community, as well as to implement the commitments previously made by the State’s authorities". Afterwards, the Commission indicated that “[it was] informed that, since the last public hearing […] the State and the representatives of the beneficiaries only met once” and it expressed its "concern about the fact that the State has not given adequate participation to the beneficiaries in the implementation of the measures". 27. In this regard, the Court notes that there is inconsistent information from the representatives and the State regarding different attempts made by both sides to meet and verify the situation of the implementation of these provisional measures. Nonetheless, according to information provided by both sides, the number of meetings held since the last Order issued by the Tribunal in this matter (supra Having Seen clause 1) has been minimal. The Court urges the representatives and the State to continue making efforts to address the situation and the needs of the members of the Kankuamo Indigenous Community, regardless of the existence of provisional measures. E. Enforcement of provisional measures 28. The Court recalls that the principle of prima facie assessment of a case and the application of assumptions in cases when protection is required has led the Court to order provisional measures on many occasions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the need to maintain the protective measures calls for a more strict evaluation by the Court of the existence of the situation that gave rise to those measures13. If a State requests the rescission or modification of the provisional measures so ordered, 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. In turn, the burden of proof and argument of the beneficiaries and of the Commission will be greater as the time goes by and there are no new facts committed by the entity that gave rise to the provisional measures. 29. In addition, the Court must take into account that, according to the Preamble of the American Convention, the international protection in the form of a convention "reinforces or complements the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States". Therefore, should there be evidence that the State in question has developed effective mechanisms or acts of protection for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Tribunal would be able to decide whether to rescind the provisional measures, delegating the obligation to protect the primary responsible, that is, the State14. Should the provisional measures be rescinded by the Court for this reason, the State would have the obligation, according to the duty to guarantee human rights, to maintain the protective measures it has adopted, which were considered by the Tribunal to be effective, as long as the circumstances call for them. 30. The Tribunal emphasizes that it has issued three orders in this matter (supra Having Seen clause 1) and that it has held, on three occasions, public hearings to verify the implementation of these provisional measures. Approximately seven years have passed since provisional measures have been adopted. These measures have 13 Matter of Mendoza Prisons Provisional Measures Regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, Considering Clause thirty-nine. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of March 1, 2011; Considering clause twenty-two. 14 Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra note 13; considering clause forty. 13