case (supra Having Seen clause 1). In this regard, the Court reiterates that in the Judgment delivered in the case of Torres Millacura et al v. Argentina, the Republic of Argentina was ordered to remove all obstacles, de facto and de jure, that maintain the impunity regarding that which occurred to Mr. Ivan Eladio Torres Millacura and to initiate and continue the investigations necessary to determine and, where necessary, punish those responsible for such acts, within a reasonable time. 18 In this Judgment, the Court also ordered the State to continue the search for Mr. Torres Millacura, for which it must make every effort as soon as possible. Therefore, the claims of the representatives had already been considered by the Court in said Judgment. The orders relating to the search for Mr. Torres Millacura and the investigations on forced disappearance will be considered by the Court during the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment rendered in the case of Torres Millacura et al v. Argentina. Accordingly, the Court considers the request for extension of the provisional measures in favor of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura made by the representatives to be inadmissible. A.2.2. Situation of Verónica Heredia 16. By way of the Order of November 25, 2011, the Court lifted the provisional measures ordered in favor of Veronica Heredia,19 since the representatives had not demonstrated a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and risk of irreparable harm to her life and personal integrity. Even though on this occasion the representatives did not submit a formal request for provisional measures in favor of Ms. Heredia to be adopted once again, it is clear from the brief of May 21, 2013, that they consider her to be in danger and should be subject to protection. 17. In this regard, the Court considers that the information provided by the representatives on what Mr. Guillermo Flores had heard "on the street " and in regard to the alleged car following Ms. Heredia when driving “on her route” is insufficient to determine that there is a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and a risk of irreparable damage to her life and personal integrity. Moreover, according to that which has been reported by the State, Ms. Heredia has not reported this incident to the corresponding authorities. This was not contested by the representatives.20 In this regard, the Court recalls that, in the International Law of Human Rights, the principle of subsidiary presupposes that it corresponds to States, as the first instance, to respect and ensure rights in their jurisdiction. 21 In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to adopt provisional measures in favor of Verónica Heredia at this time. B. Adoption of the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Guillermo Flores and Alba Rosana Vera González B.1. Information provided by the parties and observations of the Commission 18 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, paras. 164 and 166. 19 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2011, operative paragraph one. 20 The representatives provided the Court with “evidence that Veronica [Heredia] went to the Office of the Delegation of the Ministry of Government of the Province of Chubut in the city of Comodoro Rivadavia on 10/9/13,” where she denounced “harassment […due to] her professional capacity.” However, in said document there is no evidence of the alleged threats reported before this Tribunal (supra Considering clause 6). 21 Cf. Matter of Communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó regarding Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, considering clause fifty-two. 8