Convention.5 If for this reason the provisional measures ruled by the Court are lifted, it shall be the responsibility of the State, according to its duty of guaranteeing human rights, to maintain the protection measures that it would have undertaken and that the Court considered to be effective, for the time that the circumstances indicate. * * * 7. That, having passed the protection measures, the Court or whoever presides it does not require in principle any evidence of the factual substance of the case that prima facie seem to fulfill the requirements of the Article 63 of the Convention. On the contrary, the maintenance of the protection measures demands an evaluation of the Court in regards to the persistence of the situation of extreme seriousness and urgency to avoid irreparable damages that originated them,6 over the basis of information allowed for producing evidence. 8. That regarding the instant case, the present measures were passed due to the appraise prima facie of threat to the right to life and to humane treatment of the members of the Community Studies and Psychosocial Action Team (hereinafter “ECAP” by its Spanish acronym), who were supporting the process of indemnity to the victims and survivors of the Plan de Sanchez Massacre Case, according to the established in the Order by the Presidency of October 20, 2006 and ratified by the Court on November 25, 2006. 9. That in conformity with the Order ruled by the Inter-American Court from November 26, 2007, the State must, inter alia, keep the measures that it would have undertaken, and immediately undertake the necessary ones in order to protect the life and integrity of the beneficiaries of these provisional measures (supra Having Seen 2). 10. That in regards to the passing of the protection measures ruled by the Court, the State manifested that the ECAP buildings in the central headquarter and the offices in Rabinal were provided with security, through the Civil National Police. It added that the employees of the Presidency Commission Coordinator of Politics of the Executives Regarding Human Rights (hereinafter “COPREDEH” by its Spanish acronym) held a meeting with the Director of ECAP, who stated that the protection measures provided by the Civil National Police had been effective until March, 2008; therefore, from that date on, only established a security perimeter and not a “permanent post in the head office of ECAP,” but that they had not received any new threats or intimidations. Finally, the Stated asked the Court to rescind from the provisional measures as any incidents of threats occurred against the members of ECAP, “in observance to what was said by the Community Studies and Psychosocial 5 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 20, 2003, Considering thirteenth; Matter of Marta Colomina. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 4, 2006, Considering eleventh; and Case of Raxcacó Reyes Case et al.. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering twelveth. 6 Cf. Matter of Pueblo Indígena Kankuamo, supra note 1, Considering seventh; and Case of Mack Chang Case et al.. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, Considering 32.