and her daughters [and] consider[ed] that this information […] would make it possible to determine whether the risks to the safety and physical and personal integrity of the beneficiaries still exist or have been overcome and, thus, be able to objectively decide on the continuation of the [p]rovisional [m]easures in relation to [these].” The argument concerning the lack of information in those investigations was reiterated by the representatives in their briefs of observations presented in 2012. 32. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission, in its brief of observations of February 14, 2012, “note [d] that […] the information available to date is insufficient to assess the appropriateness of maintaining the provisional measures in favor of these beneficiaries [and] consider[ed] that there are relatively recent indications–the telephone calls reported by the representatives- that the situation of risk continues, which, in the absence of other elements of information, makes it difficult to reach a conclusive opinion on this point.” This position was reiterated in its briefs of observations of July 13, 2012 and January 29, 2013. In this last brief, the Commission also “consider[ed] that the parties could seek an updated evaluation of the risk faced by these beneficiaries through the mechanisms established at the domestic level for those purposes.” 33. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires the concurrence of three conditions for the Court to order provisional measures: a) “extreme gravity”; b) “urgency”, and c) the need to “avoid irreparable damage” to persons. These three conditions must coexist and must be present in any situation in which the Court’s intervention is requested. Likewise, the three conditions described must persist for the Court to maintain the protection ordered. 17 If one of these has ceased to exist, it will be up to the Court to consider the pertinence of continuing with the protection ordered. 18 34. The Court recalls that when ordering protection measures, the Court or its President may apply the principle of prima facie assessment of a case, which sometimes requires the application of assumptions when considering protection needs. 19 Notwithstanding this, maintaining protection measures requires the Court to rigorously assess the persistence of the situation that gave rise to these. 20 In order to maintain provisional measures it is necessary that the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage persist, along with their direct relationship with the facts that prompted the granting of the provisional measures in this case. Thus, having regard to the Court’s requirements to consider the need to maintain these, this information must be duly demonstrated and justified. 21 17 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 6, 2009, Considering paragraph 14, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of April 27, 2012, Considering paragraph 3. 18 Cf. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of August 29, 1998, Considering paragraph 6, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of April 27, 2012, Considering paragraph 3 in fine. 19 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of August 30, 2004, Considering paragraph 10, and Matter of A. J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 22, 2011, Considering paragraph 11. 20 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of April 3, 2009, Considering paragraph 7, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic Provisional Measures regarding Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of February 29, 2012, Considering paragraph 28. 21 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 14, 2001, Considering paragraph 4, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 23. 11