-10- persons are met, provisional measures become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.1 6. That it is essential for provisional measures to be maintained fully current and to produce their effects up to the time the Tribunal may order them lifted and notify the State of its decision in such sense. 7. That provisional measures are of an exceptional nature, are ordered on the basis of needs for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained as long as the Court deems the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, and of avoiding irreparable damage to the rights of the persons they protect, continue to be met. * * * 8. That by means of the brief of November 9, 2005 the State conveyed a copy of a note of November 3, 2005, addressed by Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza to the Minister of the Interior, wherein Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza stated that “because it was consistent with [his own] rights and urgent matters he had to see to outside the capital city and not having the need to continue with the personal and family protection Policía Nacional del Perú (National Police of Peru) staff had been affording him under provisions by the Court [...] he irrevocably DESIST[S] from the security and protection services that had been granted the undersigned and [his] family […]”(supra Having Seen clause Number 4). 9. That after the aforesaid note had been forwarded, when filing their observations on the possibility the measures might be lifted, both the Commission and Mr. Carlos Rivera-Paz, a beneficiary of the aforesaid measures and initially the representative of the other beneficiaries, have stated that the life and personal integrity of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza are at serious risk, and that from the information they have it appears that the situation of risk has not ceased. Furthermore, the Commission has reported that a telephone conversation was held with Mr. Ramírez-Hinostroza and that on November 17, 2005 he expressed that he was “grateful that he had been afforded the protection measures[,…] that he was interested to continue under the protection thereof” and that “he was dissatisfied [with] the way the State had been providing him with the security measures, specifically because he had not been given a vehicle for his conveyance, nor financial resources for his subsistence and that of his family” (supra Having Seen clause Number 10.d). 10. That the State has expressed in three official notes (supra Having Seen clause Number 4 b), that “the [p]rovisional [m]easures ordered by the Court […] in favor of Luis Alberto Ramírez-Hinostroza, his next of kin and [the] lawyer Carlos Rivera-Paz, cannot be suspended not held to have expired by the sole expression of the will of he who is one of the beneficiaries of the aforesaid protection measures[, as well as that] the security and protection measures must be maintained.” 1 Cf, Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ("La Pica"). Urgent Measures. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 13, 2006, Fifth Considering clause; Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM . Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2005, Sixth Considering clause; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2005, Fourth Considering clause.