4. The brief of July 6, 2012, in which CEJIL informed the Court that it “ha[d] ended its role as representative of the victims” and of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures in the case in question. 5. The briefs of January 19, September 2 and November 12, 2010, March 23 and June 2, 2011, and May 9, September 25 and October 16, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded its observations on the reports of the State, the observations of CEJIL, and the briefs of Karen Fischer (infra having seen paragraph 9). 6. The notes of the Secretariat of July 10 and 26, August 22 and September 14, 2012 in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court, all the beneficiaries of the provisional measures were asked to specify who would be representing before this Court. They were also asked to provide the contact details of the said persons, as well as the single address to which communications concerning the provisional measures relating to this case could be forwarded. In addition, they were advised of the characteristics required of their observations on the State’s reports. 7. The notes of August 22 and September 13, 2012, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President of the Court, asked the beneficiaries to provide the Court with current information on whether or not the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable harm persisted that had given rise to the adoption of these provisional measures so that the Court could assess the pertinence of maintaining the provisional measures issued in relation to this case. 8. The brief of August 3, 2012, in which Karen Fischer advised, by a notarized power of attorney, that she would represent Mario Arturo López Arrivillaga and Daniela Carpio Fischer. In this brief, Mrs. Fischer indicated that “[her] son […] lives in Spain.” 9. The briefs of July 16, August 22, September 6 and October 4, 2012, in which Karen Fischer provided information on some problems in the implementation of the security system and regarding the alleged persistence of her situation of risk. 10. The note of the Secretariat of October 19, 2012, reminding the beneficiaries of the provisional measures that they had not presented the information requested in previous communications and that the Court in plenary would be advised of this situation. 11. The brief of October 19, 2012, in which Abraham Méndez provided information on the alleged persistence of extreme gravity and urgency for himself and his family. In addition, he indicated that he would represent himself in the proceeding on provisional measures. 12. The note of the Secretariat of October 22, 2012, in which it asked the State to forward observations on the brief sent by Mr. Méndez. The said observations had not been presented when this Order was issued. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or the “American Convention”) since May 25, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 2