obligation to guarantee Mr. Romero Rivera’s right to life and personal integrity, in light of the provisions of Article 1(1) of the American Convention (infra Considering para. 17). 10. In submitting its observations to the request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen 6) the State asked the Court to declare that request inadmissible, given that the recent facts to which the representatives referred “did not suggest the gravity and urgency of the situation and [had] not been denounced before the competent organs.” The State did not submit any observations regarding the connection between the request for provisional measures and the object of the case of García and Family, and instead affirmed that one of the factors of risk for Mr. Romero Rivera is the investigation of that case (infra Considering para. 12). 11. Of particular relevance to the analysis of this request for provisional measures is the fact that upon submitting its observations (supra Having Seen 6) Guatemala stated that it would “provide national protection to Mr. Luis Roberto Romero Rivera, with his prior consent and after the respective risk assessment, with mechanisms to guarantee the life, physical integrity and security of the petitioner.” In this regard the State declared that […] in compliance with Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights and with the principles pro persona, good faith, pacta sunt servanda, favor libertatis, adoption of domestic measures –allant de soi- that inform International Human Rights Law, the State of Guatemala, considering the position held by the attorney Luis Roberto Romero Rivera and having regard to the cases which he investigates and conducts, shall adopt, with his prior consent and after a risk assessment, a protection and security system that is appropriate to the threat, risk or vulnerability that must be counteracted, in accordance with its national mechanisms. (emphasis of the original) 12. Subsequently, in a brief of August 22, 2011 (supra Having Seen 8), Guatemala provided additional information regarding the proposed protection. The State reported that a study was carried out which “considered the factors of risk affecting Mr. Romero Rivera, including, his investigation of cases of historical and national importance, such as the case in question.” Furthermore, Guatemala indicated that the agents who provided security for Mr. Romero Rivera were not withdrawn at any time and “therefore the protection scheme of which Mr. Romero Rivera is the beneficiary has been provided in an uninterrupted and continuous manner.” The Court emphasizes that the State pointed out that, based on the risk assessment carried out and the evidence provided by the beneficiary, “the level of risk to the life and physical integrity of Mr. Romero Rivera demonstrated and confirmed the advisability of continuing with the current scheme (personal security provided by two agents […], working in shifts of 8 days with 8 days of rest)”. Finally, Guatemala indicated that Mr. Romero Rivera had requested accompaniment by a police vehicle when he needs to move form one place to another, for which “it is necessary to carry out the relevant procedures and ascertain the feasibility of that petition”, and that it would report on this matter in due course. 13. In this regard, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the representatives were asked to indicate whether Mr. Romero Rivera had agreed to the protection proposed by the State (supra Having Seen 7 and 10). In the brief of August 25, 2011 (supra Having Seen 12), the representatives stated that “[a]fter being consulted on this matter, Mr. Luis Roberto Romero Rivera, accept[ed] the security measures proposed” by Guatemala. They further indicated that after “after the State had verified the situation of risk facing Mr. Luis Roberto Romero Rivera, and after he had accepted the security plan, they respectfully reitera [te] that he be granted security as has been receiving, and that he also be assigned the accompaniment of a police vehicle when he needs to move form one place to another.” Finally, they requested that “the honorable Court, accompany the monitoring of the fulfillment of the security measure proposed by the State of Guatemala.” 6