security and confidence.” In this manner, “the Commission requests the State of Argentina in its next bimonthly report to provide information on the viability of the request on the other implemented measures of protection.” B.2. Considerations of the Court 21. By way of Order of February 13, 2013, the Court determined that from the information presented at that time, there was prima facie evidence that Mr. Guillermo Flores had recently received threats to his personal safety and life at his home, and had apparently been harassed by State authorities, allegedly due to the information he provided in connection with the disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres and the case Millacura Llaipén et al v. Argentina. Thus, the Court found that Mr. Flores was in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that justified the extension of measures of protection to avoid irreparable damage to his rights to life and integrity.23 However, by way of said Order, the Court asked the representatives and the State to submit, by no later than March 18, 2013, current and detailed information on the risk facing Mr. Guillermo Flores, reporting on specific facts, if applicable and on the actions taken to implement the measures ordered in his favor, and establishing the grounds for the need to maintain or, where applicable, lift them.24 22. The Court values that Argentina has coordinated with Mr. Flores and Ms. Vera González to establish the mode of protection that will be provided to them. However, despite the Court’s requirements, the State did not provide information about the risk faced by these persons. Furthermore, from the information provided, it does not indicate that to date it has implemented any measures to protect the beneficiaries, as was ordered in said Order (supra Having Seen clause 1 and Considering clause 21). For their part, the representatives stated that Mr. Flores has “suffered escalating intimidation and attacks” without specifying, beyond the facts that occurred on May 7, 2013, what these incidents consist of, nor when and where they took place. They also did not specify if these were reported to the relevant authorities. On the contrary, by way of a brief of October 18, 2013, they stated that they no longer represent the beneficiaries mentioned in the proceedings before this Court. 23. This Court has held that, in order to decide whether to maintain the provisional measures in force, the Court must consider whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to its adoption remains in force, or whether new and equally serious and urgent circumstances warrant keeping them in force.25 In this case, it is not clear from the information provided by the representatives that the previously accredited situation of extreme gravity and urgency in regard to Mr. Flores and Ms. Vera Gonzalez persists, so the Court considers it appropriate to lift the provisional measures in their favor. C. Obligations of the State of Argentina 24. Notwithstanding, that which was decided in paragraphs A and B of this Order, the Court recalls that Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of States Parties to 23 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013 , considering clause twenty-nine. 24 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on February 13, 2013, considering clause thirteen, and operative paragraphs five and seven. 25 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad y Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 29, 1998, considering clause six, and Case of Matter of Castro Rodríguez regarding México. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 23, 2013, considering clause eight. 10