been identified, has not been investigated by any authority, and is therefore, free.” Consequently, they asked the Court to maintain the provisional measures ordered in favor of Wilson Gutierrez Soler, Maria Elena Soler de Gutierrez and Kevin Daniel Gutierrez Niño. A.3. Observations of the Inter-American Commission 11. The Commission observed the State’s implementation of the protection system in favor of the beneficiaries with satisfaction and emphasized the representatives’ positive assessment. Nevertheless, it indicated that the State itself had qualified the situation of the beneficiaries as one of “extraordinary risk” and that, during the monitoring meeting held with the representatives on April 12, 2012, it had been agreed to make a new risk assessment with regard to Maria Elena Soler de Gutierrez. It also recalled that the adoption and maintenance of these provisional measures is related to the situation of harassment, arrests, threats and abuse endured by the Gutierrez Soler family, in relation to their search for justice owing to the human rights violations suffered. Consequently, according to the Commission, there is still a connection “between the progress made in the domestic investigations and the increase in the beneficiaries’ situation of risk”; thus, it considered that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency subsisted that required maintaining these provisional measures in favor of the beneficiaries. B. Participation of the beneficiaries or their representatives in the planning and implementation of the measures of protection (third operative paragraph of the Order of June 30, 2011) B.1. Information provided by the State 12. The State indicated that, on July 21, 2011, and on April 12, 2012, meetings had been held with the representatives and Mr. Gutierrez Soler to monitor and to reach agreements on the implementation of the provisional measures. The purpose of the last meeting was to establish a mechanism for dialogue on the implementation of the provisional measures in order to assess the said measures in favor of the beneficiaries. In this regard, the State indicated that, within the framework of the discussions, “there has been constant and fluid communication with the petitioners and beneficiaries,” which has allowed each State agency to listen to and assess the observations of the beneficiaries and their representatives in order to adopt the necessary corrective measures, if appropriate. B.2. Observations of the representatives 13. The information submitted by the representatives reveals that meetings to monitor the provisional measures were indeed held on July 21, 2011, and April 12, 2012. B.3. Observations of the Inter-American Commission 14. It appreciated the fact that the parties continued to hold monitoring meetings, because they represent a mechanism for the participation of and coordination with the beneficiaries and their representatives, and also allow the measures of protection to be adapted to specific measures. C. Considerations of the Court 15. The Court recalls that, when ordering measures of protection, the Court or its President uses prima facie criteria in order to assess the requirements and, at times, it may 5