Bautista. The adoption of preventive measures by the National Police was also requested.” 2008 1.3. Considerations of the Court regarding the scope of the Order issued in 15. In its Order of February 8, 2008, the Court required the State to “adopt such provisional measures as may be necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of all the members of ASFADDES, by protecting the premises of the aforementioned organization”, and to “adopt the measures necessary in order to ensure the right to life and to 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 and Nemecio Oquendo”. The Order was prompted by “a series of acts of harassment and grave threats against the premises and members of ASFADDES”, for which reason the Court considered that “the situation of risk continues and it is appropriate to maintain the protection measures covering the premises”, and that it was pertinent to “continue effecting periodic risk studies to determine the type of protection [which may be] most adequate and effective in the case of each specific person and premises at risk.” In relation to the risk affecting specific beneficiaries, the Court noted that “[b]etween 2001 and 2007, situations of risk have been reported regarding, inter alia”, the 12 persons mentioned, and therefore it was not appropriate to maintain the measures for the 41 people who had been individually identified prior to 2001. 16. Furthermore, in the Order of 2008 the Court took note of a request to extend the provisional measures to the “Nydia Erika Bautista Foundation” and “Familiares de Colombia” organizations. However, the Court did not include those organizations among the beneficiaries of the measures; therefore, it is not appropriate to consider whether circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency exist in relation to these organizations or their members. 17. The Court has pointed out that the Organization of American States recognizes the need to “support the work undertaken, at both the national and regional level, by human rights defenders”, acknowledge their “valuable contribution to the promotion, observance and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms [and to] condemn actions that directly or indirectly prevent or hinder [their] task in the Americas.” 6 18. The Court has also established that States have the duty to provide the necessary means to enable human rights defenders to do their work freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats in order to foil attempts against their life and physical integrity; to abstain from placing hurdles in the way of their work; and to investigate thoroughly and effectively the violations committed against them, fighting impunity. 7 6 Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006, para. 75, and Matter Álvarez et al. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, Considering para. 19. 7 Cf. Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of April 21, 2006, Considering para. 9, and Matter Álvarez et al., Order of the Court of February 8, 2008. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, Considering para. 23. 6