her physical integrity at risk.”12 On the other hand, in regard to the situation of Verónica Heredia, Argentina noted that the risk stated by the representatives (supra Considering clause 6) has not been reported “before the domestic judicial authorities […]. That is, in this case, the representatives have not exhausted domestic remedies[, …] which would have provided the State with an opportunity to handle the situation using its domestic legal order.” 8. The Commission “made note” of the State’s decision to “reactive the periodic rounds made by the Argentine Coast Guard at the homes of Ms. Millacura and Mr. Miguel Ángel Sánchez and "value[d]” this “change of position,” indicating that these measures should be communicated to the beneficiaries thereof, in order to ensure a greater effectiveness. It also stated that “it is important that the State, under the framework of the willingness expressed to continue granting this protection, make reference to the feasibility of reinstalling the guard station with Coast Guard personnel. Also, it considered it appropriate that the Court continue to monitor this case taking into account “i) the continuity of the incidents of harassment and intimidation reported by the representative, and ii) a set of particular circumstances in this case that allow for the inference of continuity of risk for both to next-of-kin and to witnesses in the framework of the investigations that remain in force at the domestic level.” With regard to Ms. Veronica Heredia, it said that “the representative had informed the authorities of that situation.” A.2. Considerations of the Court A.2.1. Situation de María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Fabiola Valeria Torres Millacura, Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura, Evelyn Paola Caba, Ivana Valeria Torres Hernández, Romina Marcela Torres Hernández, Tamara Bolívar, Miguel Ángel Sánchez and Iván Eladio Torres 9. In its Order of February 13, 2013, the Court lifted the provisional measures ordered in favor of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, her children, Marcos Alejandro and Fabiola Valeria Torres and her grandchildren, Ivana and Romina Torres, and Evelyn Paola Caba, as well as Tamara Bolívar and Miguel Ángel Sánchez, in the absence of evidence that proved the continued existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and risk of irreparable damage to the lives and integrity of those persons. 13 To do so, the Court took into account, in particular, that the representatives had not argued the existence of recent threats related to the events that led to the adoption of these measures, those stemming from the investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. 14 10. The Court recalls that the provisional measures mechanism requires proof of the conventional requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and irreparable harm set out in Article 63(2) of the Convention in regard to those persons for whom they are intended (supra Having Seen clause 3). In this regard the Court has already held that, under the Convention and the 12 6267). Note of SDH- DAI N°: 419/ 13, Minisry of Justice and Human Rights (case file on provisional measures, folio 13 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, considering clauses eleven, twelve, seventeen. 14 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, considering clause eleven. 6