10 [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia].” To this, the DAS director responded that such would only be possible by judicial order. Mr. Pérez then joined a civil suit against DAS officials for the “so-called ‘wiretapping scandal.’” Thus, on April 10 and 12, 2010, the National Prosecution Unit, Supreme Court Division, requested that the DAS certify “whether intelligence information exists” on several people, among them Luís Guillermo Pérez. On May 13, 2010, the Director of the DAS responded by indicating that the Analysis and Counterintelligence branches, as well as the external counterintelligence group all had information on Mr. Pérez. Finally, the representatives reported that “[a]ll the State authorities have been notified of Mr. Luís Guillermo Pérez’s return” and that some of them, such as the “Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Justice and the Interior[,]” have declared their willingness to adopt the provisional measures necessary such that [he] may return to the country.” 23. The Commission found that “because the beneficiary Luís Guillermo Pérez is allegedly about to return to [Colombian] national territory where he has been the target of harassment, [...] it is not appropriate to consider rescission of the provisional measures in his favor.” 24. In other matters, the Court has found that a beneficiary’s exit from territory of the State that was obligated to protect him or her implies that provisional measures have been rendered moot.5 In this case, the State has provided any information as to the measures taken for the beneficiary’s benefit, did it refer to his departure from Colombia until recently. the the not nor 25. The Court notes the representatives’ reporting on Mr. Pérez’s return to Colombian territory, yet they have not substantiated how his return places him in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. Furthermore, the information submitted on Mr. Pérez is not clearly related to the grounds for the present measures, that is, his participation as a witness and attorney in civil proceedings regarding the Mapiripán massacre. The Tribunal thus finds it necessary that the representatives and the Commission explain and substantiate the relationship between Mr. Pérez’s return to Colombia and any risks he could face there. * * * 26. In order for the Court to order provisional measures, Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that three conditions be present: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency”; and iii) the need to “avoid irreparable damages.” Similarly, these three conditions must be present in order for the Court to maintain any mandated protection in place. If one of them has ceased to be applicable, it falls to the Tribunal to assess the relevance of continuing with the mandated protection; this is to be done without prejudice to any future order of measures in the case of all three conditions again coming together at a later date. In addition, when ordering provisional measures, the standard for assessing the required elements is prima 5 Cf. Matter of Lysias Fleury. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2008, Considering clause eighteen; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 8, 2009, Considering clause eighty-one; and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering clause twenty-two.