representation of the beneficiaries prior to those dates, a situation of “extreme gravity, urgency and irreparable risk” persisted in his regard. In its last observations, it emphasized that, added to the above, Mr. Meléndez Quijano’s classification by the State “as a ‘high-risk’ person [(supra considering paragraph 17)] allows it to be inferred that the provisional measures continue to be necessary.” Considerations of the Court 19. The Court finds it desirable to reiterate that provisional measures are exceptional in nature; they are issued based on the needs for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained provided that the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, and of the need for the measures in order to avoid irreparable damage to the rights of the people protected by them subsist. Thus, the Court must evaluate whether the circumstances that justified the granting of the measures remain in force. 25 If one of the said requirements is no longer valid, the Court must assess the pertinence of continuing the protection ordered. 26 Although the assessment of these requirements when ordering the adoption of the provisional measures is made “prima facie and, at times, presumptions must be applied in view of the needs for protection,” 27 the Court has indicated that “the maintenance of the measures of protection requires the Court to make a more rigorous evaluation of the persistence of the situation that gave rise to them.” 28 The Court has also observed that “the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats or acts of intimidation, added to the absence of an imminent risk, can lead to the lifting of the provisional measures.” 29 20. In addition, the Court has: Reiterate[d] 30 that a supposed lack of investigation by a State does not necessarily constitute a circumstance of extreme gravity and urgency that warrants maintaining the provisional measures. In addition, at times, the obligation to investigation can extend over a considerable length of time, during which the threat or risk does not necessarily remain extreme and urgent. This Court has also indicated that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings concerning the facts that gave rise to the provisional measures corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case. 31 In sum, the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate is not, per se, sufficient reasons to maintain the provisional measures. 32 25 Similarly see Matter of Wong Ho Wing, supra, sixteenth considering paragraph. 26 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Álvarez et al., supra, second considering paragraph. 27 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of August 30, 2004, tenth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, forty-sixth considering paragraph. 28 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó, supra, forty-sixth considering paragraph. 29 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of February 29, 2012, forty-eighth considering paragraph, and Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al., supra, eighth considering paragraph. 30 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra, twenty-fourth considering paragraph, and Matter of Álvarez et al., supra, one hundred and third considering paragraph. 31 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, fourteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Álvarez et al., supra, one hundred and third considering paragraph. 32 Matter of Álvarez et al., supra, one hundred and third considering paragraph. 11