be extremely important to have a recent comprehensive medical report that evaluates the beneficiary’s actual state of health following the surgery, including the impact of the latestage interruption of her pregnancy.” In addition, they indicated that it was important to ask the State to provide information on “the continuation of the priority medical care that the beneficiary needs not only due to her disease, but also to monitor the negative consequences that may have been caused by the delayed response by the authorities.” Lastly, they requested that the State guarantee “that the beneficiary would receive the priority medical care that she requires, based on the above-mentioned evaluation, in relation to her disease and to the negative effects that the wait for the result of the legal proceedings may have caused her.” 10. For its part, the Commission indicated that “following the order for provisional measures issued by the Inter-American Court, it was possible to perform the medical procedure that eliminated one of the risk factors for the life, personal integrity, and health of [Ms.] B.; in other words, the progress of the pregnancy under the health situation of which the Court is aware.” Nevertheless, the Commission stated that “bearing in mind that the Inter-American Court ordered the adoption of the necessary measures to protect the life, personal integrity, and health of Ms. B., and that the international standards with regard to maternal health include attending to the specific needs related to pregnancy, birth, and the postpartum period, the Commission noted that it did not have complete information on the follow-up of her health situation.” Therefore, the Commission considered that it was relevant for the Court to “require the State to present more detailed information on this aspect, including a response to the concerns expressed by the representatives regarding the kidney failure from which the beneficiary is allegedly suffering following the caesarian section.” 11. With regard to the observations in the communications presented by the Commission and the representatives, the State reiterated the information it had provided in its previous report and added that, on June 19, and on July 3 and 10, 2013, Ms. B. had attended medical control appointments in the Cardiology Unit and “in the high-risk postpartum unit.” It also indicated that “she was given another monitoring appointment on August 26 in the Rheumatology Unit.” Furthermore, regarding the obligation to guarantee the life and personal integrity of Ms. B., the State reiterated that this “remained in force with regard to [Ms. B.], at any stage of the evolution of her underlying disease, and any other circumstances that could eventually threaten or affect the enjoyment of these rights, as well as the right to health.” 12. The Court recalls that maintaining the measures of protection requires it to make a more rigorous assessment of the persistence of the situation that gave rise to them. 5 Consequently, the Court must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists that determined the adoption of the measures, or whether new equally grave and urgent circumstances warrant maintaining them. 6 Moreover, the Court reiterates that the State, when requesting the lifting of the provisional measures, must present sufficient evidence and arguments to allow the Court to assess that the risk or threat no longer meets the requirements of extreme gravity, and urgency to avoid irreparable damage. 7 5 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, considering paragraph 7, and Matter of Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, considering paragraph 44. 6 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional measures with regard to Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, considering paragraph 6, and Case of the Barrios Family. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 30, 2013, considering paragraph 4. 7 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, considering paragraph 24, and Matter of Álvarez et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, considering paragraph 44. 4