9 (iii) the need to “avoid irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in all situations where the Court’s intervention is sought.10 I. Regarding the request to expand the provisional measures to include the beneficiaries’ next of kin 13. The Court observes that, in its request to expand the provisional measures, the Commission provided information on a series of events that had befallen the beneficiary José Ángel Alvarado Favela, father of the alleged disappeared person José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, in connection with the investigation into what happened to the beneficiaries who had allegedly disappeared (supra having seen paragraph 7). Regarding these events, the Court notes that Mexico has argued an alleged lack of willingness of the representatives and the beneficiaries to collaborate with the investigation, and also takes note of what the representatives have indicated concerning this argument by the State (supra having seen paragraph 14). Nevertheless, it observes that the State confirmed that officials from the Attorney General’s Office had approached Mr. Alvarado Favela to ask for his statement,11 and that he refused to provide it (supra having seen paragraph 10(b)). In this regard, the Court recalls that, in its Order of November 26, 2010, it considered that the different occasions on which family members had reported that they felt harassed or threatened were related to denunciations, investigations or questioning by the State authorities with regard to the alleged forced disappearance of their next of kin.12 Accordingly, the Court considered that the conduct of the investigations and the need to gather information from the next of kin for that purpose, did not justify or constitute sufficient reason for the apparent repeated visits to the proposed beneficiaries’ homes by State authorities, particularly by officials who the proposed beneficiaries had identified as the possible perpetrators of the alleged disappearance of their next of kin.13 The Court reiterates these considerations and urges the State to take them into account when implementing actions to determine the whereabouts of the beneficiaries who have allegedly disappeared. 14. The Court also emphasizes that the beneficiaries and their representatives should offer all necessary collaboration to ensure the effective implementation of the measures.14 The State must take the necessary steps to ensure that the provisional measures required in this Order are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries or their representatives so that the said measures are offered diligently and effectively. In this regard, the Court underscores the importance of the state authorities establishing clear and direct lines of communication with the beneficiaries that foster the trust required for their adequate protection. 10 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Socioeducational Detention Unit, supra note 8, seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra note 3, tenth considering paragraph. 11 The State included the said remarks in its observations. However, the attachments accompanying the State’s observations include a note from the Attorney General’s Office stating that the its local office in Chihuahua “did not carry out any procedure on the day and at the time mentioned by the beneficiaries of the measures [January 24, 2011], particularly at the home of José Ángel Alvarado Favela, which would have resulted from preparation of the detailed case file [of this matter] under its responsibility.” 12 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 7, forty-fifth considering paragraph. 13 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra note 7, forty-fifth considering paragraph. 14 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of September 2, 2010, twentieth considering paragraph; Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 22, 2011, twenty-eighth considering paragraph, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 1, 2011, twenty-eighth considering paragraph.