urgency related to irreparable damage, and that would warrant the adoption of provisional measures in favor of the ASFADDES offices. 39. In this proceeding, the State has indicated its willingness to adopt specific measures to provide immediate and effective protection. The Court notes that a dispute exists between the State and the representatives over the implementation of protection measures in the ASFADDES offices that are not owned by the organization, specifically the measures that affect the architectural structure. The representatives also criticize the fact that the work to adapt and maintain the armored installations at ASFADDES headquarters in Bogotá was not carried out. However, it is important to clarify that such disputes may be considered by the Court only insofar as they are directly related to the need to prevent a situation of extreme gravity, urgency and the risk of irreparable damage. Any alleged setbacks or delays in the past regarding the implementation of collective measures of protection for the ASFADDES offices do not constitute per se a justification for maintaining the provisional measures ordered. 40. Consequently, the Court lifts the provisional measures specifically related to the protection of the ASFADDES offices. Nevertheless, having regard to the principle of good faith, the Court urges the State to continue implementing the various agreements made to improve the protection systems in the ASFADDES offices, within the framework of the institutions belonging to the domestic protection system. 3. Regarding the situation of risk and the obligation to adopt the measures necessary to guarantee the right to life and physical integrity of María Eugenia López, Adriana Diosa, Astrid Manrique, Erik Arellana Bautista, Daniel Prado, Silvia Quintero, María Eugenia Cardenas, Álvaro Guisao Usuga, Florentino Guisao Usuga, Gloria Gómez, Veronica Marín, Nemecio Oquendo and other members of ASFADDES in an alleged situation of extreme gravity and urgency 41. The State requested that the Court “assess the effectiveness of the provisional measures” in this matter, considering that: i) “the petitioners have not submitted upto-date information confirming a continued situation of gravity and urgency regarding Astrid Manrique, Daniel Prado, Silvia Quintero, María Eugenia Cárdenas, Álvaro Guisao and Florentino Guisao”; ii) “Astrid Manrique, Daniel Prado, Silvia Quintero, María Eugenia Cárdenas, Álvaro Guisao and Florentino Guisao, […] are no longer active members of [ASFADDES]”; iii) “Erick Arellana and María Eugenia López […] do not form part of ASFADDES”, and iv) “both the context and the specific situations that gave rise to the adoption of these provisional measures are intrinsically related to the acts of violence against the ASFADDES organization or its members [and] membership of said Association is a parameter when examining the effectiveness of the provisional measures.” 42. The representatives requested that the provisional measures be maintained in favor of ASFADDES and its members “and also regarding the beneficiaries named in previous Orders” of the Court. 43. The Commission considered that “provisional measures should be maintained in favor of all the persons affected”, and that “[a]lthough risk studies are an adequate and effective means to design appropriate protection schemes, on the one hand, the measures should not be conditioned to such a study and, on the other, the State must ensure that such studies are conducted in a timely manner.” Furthermore, it stated that, “regarding the six beneficiaries who no longer belong to ASFADDES, the 12