make him desist from participating in it,11 the representatives did not inform the Court of this fact, or provide supporting documentation, beyond mentioning the existence of “an unidentified group that perpetrates attacks against the beneficiary” that could result in irreparable harm. In addition, there is no evidence in the case file that any complaints or requests for protection have been filed in relation to this alleged fact supposedly related to the testimony of Mr. Hinostroza in the proceeding in question, or any reference to consequences arising from his participation in it as a witness. 24. Furthermore, regarding the alleged detention that supposedly occurred on February 25, 2011, the information provided by the parties reveals that the detention of Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza took place because the beneficiary was cutting down trees near or on land owned by the Military Base of Concepción. This notwithstanding, the Court notes that these facts are unconnected with any circumstance relating to the situation of risk that led to the adoption of these provisional measures, but are confined to an isolated incident related to Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s private activities. Similarly, the facts alleged by the State concerning the alleged illegal action of the beneficiary involving the security personnel of a casino - during which he supposedly caused some material damage - are facts that are entirely beyond the purpose of these provisional measures, and the Court will not assess them. In this regard, the Court considers it to be the responsibility of domestic authorities to investigate what happened in both circumstances and to reach the appropriate conclusions, as it is not up to the Court to consider either of these events in the context of provisional measures. Instead, this responsibility corresponds to domestic judicial and administrative proceedings. 25. In addition, regarding Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s report about alleged “telephone and other threats,” which he says he received following the events of February 2011, the Court has no specific information on these acts, and the representatives have not provided any supporting documentation that would allow the Court to weigh their existence. 26. Based on this, the Court observes that no information has been provided on specific situations of risk faced by the beneficiaries, and it finds that Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s participation as a witness in a proceeding more than two years ago is not enough to conclude that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists that could give rise to irreparable harm to him or his wife, their three daughters or their lawyers. 27. Lastly, the Court notes that the representatives provided information on the appointment of beneficiary Cesar Manuel Saldaña Ramírez - Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s lawyer - as a provisional judge of the Provincial Court of Chupaca-Junín. The attorney had “communicated that he would remove himself from the defense in [Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s] cases for a time.” In this regard, the Court recalls that it granted provisional measures in his favor as a result of the risk arising from his status as Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s lawyer in the context of the domestic proceedings in which Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza participates, and that this situation is therefore no longer in effect. 11 Cf. Minutes of the 11th session of August 31, 2009, case file No. 733-08 (case file of provisional measures, volume VI, page 2768). 8