intervene and must persist for the Court to maintain the order of protection and, if one of them is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 5 4. Based on its competence, the Court must consider only those arguments that are directly and strictly related to the extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Thus, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, the Court must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists that determined their adoption, or whether new circumstances that are equally grave and urgent justify maintaining them.6 5. In the Order of February 6, 2008 (supra having seen paragraph 1), the Court declared that, in these proceedings on provisional measures, it would not consider the effectiveness of the investigations into the events that gave rise to them, because this analysis corresponded to the examination of the merits of the matter that was being processed before the Inter-American Commission at the time.7 On April 18, 2010, the Commission submitted an application against the State in relation to the case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina8 under Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, and the Court delivered a judgment in this case on August 26, 2011. In this regard, in their briefs (supra having seen paragraphs 2 to 4 and 10), the parties provided information on the investigations that were being conducted into the enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. Based on the foregoing, the Court reiterates that, in this Order it will not rule on the investigations into the events that gave rise to these provisional measures. A. Adoption of the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries (third operative paragraph of the Order of November 25, 2011) and request to maintain these provisional measures 6. In the Order of November 25, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 1), the Inter-American Court found it pertinent that the provisional measures ordered in favor of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, her children, Marcos and Valeria Torres, her granddaughters, Ivana Torres, Romina Torres and Evelyn Paola Caba, and of Miguel Ángel Sánchez and Tamara Bolívar, should remain in force for eight months, which expired on July 25, 2012. Also, in order to assess the maintenance of the provisional measures, the Court considered it necessary that both the representatives and the State forward precise and detailed reports on specific incidents and the dates on which they occurred, if appropriate, the possible current situation of risk of each of the beneficiaries indicated, as well as the specific measures taken to implement these measures. In addition, the Court asked the representatives and the State to provide grounds for maintaining 5 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luís Galdámez Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 24, 2012, third considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, sixth considering paragraph, and Case of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 26, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, fourth operative paragraph. 8 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 1. 4