13 the enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, still met all the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage. This was because, according to the representatives, the last threat with these characteristics occurred to María Leontina Millacura Llaipén in 2009. 11. Thus, despite the Court’s requests (supra having seen paragraph 1 and considering paragraph 6), the representatives failed to provide information on specific recent incidents that prove that María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, her son Marcos Torres, and her granddaughters Ivana and Romina Torres, are in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and at risk of suffering irreparable damage to their life and personal integrity. Also, regarding Valeria Torres and her daughter, Evelyn Paola Caba, the representatives have not alleged the existence of recent threats related to the facts that motivated the adoption of these measures; in other words, as a result of the investigation into the enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura.14 Accordingly, the Court observes that the only threatening facts against them mentioned by the representatives relate to a robbery at their home on September 9, 2011, and the disappearance some days before this of three dogs that guarded the house. The information provided does not reveal that these facts, which happened about eighteen months ago, bear any relationship to the said investigation. For its part, the State merely indicated that the homes of the said persons are guarded 24 hours a day, and that it has requested information from domestic entities regarding the possibility of the beneficiaries who are minors being escorted to school. The Commission made no specific reference to the situation of these persons. 12. Given that the eight-month period established in the Order of November 25, 2011, for the validity of these provisional measures has expired (supra considering paragraph 6), and in view of the lack of elements proving the subsistence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and risk of irreparable damage to life and personal integrity, the Court finds it in order to lift the measures ordered in favor of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Marcos Torres, Valeria Torres, Ivana Torres, Romina Torres and Evelyn Paola Caba. A.2. Situation of Miguel Ángel Sánchez and Tamara Bolívar 13. The representatives indicated in a brief of March 2, 2012, that the measures of protection implemented in favor of Miguel Ángel Sánchez had not been effective. According to the representatives, Mr. Sánchez “receives [threats] by telephone [both] at his domicile and [on] his mobile device.” Thus, they indicated that, “approximately two months after personnel from the Naval Coastguard had been stationed at his domicile, he received a telephone call [in which a] man [who] introduced himself as ‘a Comodoro police agent’ [… told him] that ‘he had to go’ to [that city] ‘because he had to pay for a lawsuit [and because] he had a matter pending with the Chubut Police.’” According to the representatives, “approximately every 15 days, [Miguel Ángel Sánchez] receives telephone calls where no one speaks.” Furthermore, with regard to Tamara Bolívar, the representatives indicated that this beneficiary “continues to be arrested illegally, without these detentions being registered, […] beaten [and] harassed. When she is detained by members […] of the Police Force of the province of Chubut, they tell her that “they are going to kill her and they are going to make her disappear.’” According to the representatives, “Tamara suffers from extreme depression and they have serious fears for her life.” 13 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2006, eighth considering paragraph 14 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2006, eighth considering paragraph. 6