10 24. Based on the above, the Court considers that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists that could cause irreparable damage to the life and physical integrity of the beneficiary Islena Rey, which justifies maintaining provisional measures in her favor. In consequence, the Court requires the State to maintain and, if appropriate, adopt all necessary measures to protect the life and physical integrity of the said beneficiary, so that they are effective and implemented diligently. a.4 Regarding the measures of protection and situation of the beneficiaries Mariela Duarte, widow of Giraldo, and her daughters, Sara and Natalia Giraldo 25. The State reported that there are “surveillance patrols […] and Dignitary Protection personnel [who] constantly patrol the place of residence of Mrs. Duarte de Giraldo.” In addition, it indicated that the area Police had provided Mrs. Duarte de Giraldo with a list of telephone numbers of the heads of the department‟s Police Units, “so that she could communicate any irregularity in relation to her security or that of her daughters.” It added that “it had reinforced [the security of Mrs. Duarte de Giraldo] with the patrols and the appointment of a liaison officer and assistant in order to maintain better contact with [her],” and had told her that she should implement measures of security and self-protection to ensure her personal security in her daily activities and the security of her household. Lastly, it advised that, on November 20, 2009, support for the provisional relocation of the beneficiary had been approved, and that, on January 20, 2010, “Avantel” communication equipment had also been approved. 26. The representatives indicated that Mrs. Mariela Duarte did not want a protection scheme consisting of armed escorts; therefore the State had undertaken to implement different protective measures and it was agreed that the “National Police would patrol the residence of the Giraldo Duarte family.” In this regard, they stated that the beneficiary had advised that the “patrols were being carried out regularly and […] no incidents had taken place that jeopardized her security in the city of Villavicencio.” 27. The Commission, while noting that it did not have the observations of the representatives when making its own observations, repeated that it had no information regarding the regularity of the patrols conducted in favor of the beneficiaries, the places that were patrolled, or the effectiveness of these measures of protection. In addition, in its observations of February 15, 2011, the Commission indicated that neither the representatives nor the State had referred to the situation of these beneficiaries in their latest communications to the Court. 28. The Court recalls that, in its Order of February 2, 2010, it had asked the parties for “information on the persistence of the situation of 'extreme gravity and urgency' that gave rise to [the] adoption [of provisional measures] in favor of Mariela Duarte de Giraldo and her daughters,” so as to be able to assess “the pertinence of maintaining these measures.” In this regard, it observes that neither the State nor the representatives forwarded information on the situation of risk of these beneficiaries, beyond the representatives‟ assertion that the beneficiary Mariela Duarte de Giraldo was satisfied with the police patrols that were carried out to protect her and her daughters, and that “no incident jeopardizing her security” had occurred. 29. In this regard, the Court considers that the information forwarded by the parties is insufficient to determine the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that the beneficiaries may be facing. However, it notes that the State has not objected to maintaining the measures granted them, and therefore considers it desirable to maintain the provisional measures in their favor on this occasion. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates the request