CONSIDERING THAT: 1. These measures were issued in accordance with the Court’s Order of August 30, 2004, based on a prima facie assessment of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, which made it necessary to prevent irreparable damage to the right to life of the then beneficiaries, so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights (supra having seen paragraph 1). Likewise, in its Order of May 9, 2008, the Court ordered the State to maintain the measures in favor of Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara (supra having seen paragraph 3). Given that eight years have elapsed since the provisional measures were adopted in favor of the beneficiary, and considering that Guatemala has requested the lifting of these (supra having seen paragraph 11), the Court deems it appropriate to assess the information submitted by the parties. 2. The Court reiterates that, when rendering measures of protection, the principle of the standard used for assessing the requirements of the Court or the person presiding it is prima facie, and it has sometimes been necessary to apply suppositions in cases where protection is necessary.1 If a State requests the lifting or modification of the provisional measures ordered, it must present sufficient evidence and arguments to allow the Court to conclude that the risk or threat no longer meets the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency in order to avoid irreparable damage.2 The Court must take into account that, according to the Preamble of the American Convention, international protection that regards conventions in nature “reinforces or complements the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” Therefore, should there be evidence that the State in question has implemented effective mechanisms or measures of protection for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Court may decide to lift the provisional measures, delegating the obligation to protect to the primary body responsible, namely, the State.3 3. On April 20, 2012, the State reported that on September 23, 2011, the Institute of Public Criminal Defense filed a new appeal for a review in favor of Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice4 that, in its decision of October 28, 2011, declared the review admissible, and consequently, annulled the appealed judgment with regard to the imposition of the penalty, punishing Mr. Bernardino Rodríguez Lara for committing the offenses of kidnapping or abduction and aggravated theft with a “non-commutable sentence of fifty years imprisonment.” Based on the foregoing, it requested that the Court lift these provisional measures, considering that the reason for which these were granted no longer exists. 1 Cf. Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, ninth considering paragraph, and Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 28, 2012, twenty-second considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2005, eleventh considering paragraph, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 26, 2012, twenty-fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 20, 2003, thirteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2011, twenty-first considering paragraph. 4 Previously, the State and the representatives indicated that the beneficiary’s defense filed appeals for a review in 2006 and 2008, which were rejected. 3