e) On August 10, 2011, the beneficiary was chased by a motorcycle after participating in a TV show. 18. In addition, at the hearing, the representatives indicated that the last fact against the beneficiary, which took place on August 10, 2011, was denounced before the Attorney General’s Office (supra Considering clause 17.e). After that, unknown calls have been made with certain sounds and unknown e-mails with threatening messages have also been sent. These practices are permanent and “are part of the abnormality of the situation.” Similarly, the representatives indicated that the day before the public hearing, on February 22, 2012, other Honduran human rights activists received three threatening messages. Recently, the representatives indicated that: a) on March 30, 2012, a former colleague of Mrs. Lanza Ochoa reported that “two men dressed in civil clothes but looking like security agents stopped him and asked him about “this woman in the office””, and b) on May 18, 2012, when the beneficiary was heading to her office in the morning, she observed that two men, each one on a motorcycle wearing helmets, were at the corner of her house, apparently checking their motorbikes. Later, after walking seven blocks to the bus station, she “felt the wind [from one of the motorcycles passing close to her” when she was boarding the bus. 19. In turn, the Inter-American Commission sustained that the State “should give priority not only to prevent these facts from occurring but also to investigate their causes and those responsible, and their relation to the facts that led to the adoption of these provisional measures.” Moreover, it indicated that the State should adopt urgent and necessary protective measures to prevent the occurrence of facts as the ones described by the representatives and to properly respond to them. 20. The Tribunal considers it is appropriate to reiterate that provisional measures have an exceptional nature and are therefore ordered having regard to the needs for protection and, once ordered, they must be maintained while the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and need to prevent irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by them exist.5 21. From the information provided by the parties, the Tribunal observes that, in spite of the measures ordered since the adoption of the Order of September 2, 2010, several incidents against the beneficiary, which have been described in Considering clauses 17 and 18 supra, have taken place. Consequently, the Court reiterates that the State must provide the beneficiary with adequate protection to her personal integrity, in conformity with that ordered in the instant provisional measures and that agreed with the representatives. 22. The Court calls to mind that when ordering measures of protection, the standard for assessment of the requirements by the Court or its President is prima facie, hence at times it is necessary to apply presumptions to cases when protection is required.6 In this regard, 5 See Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, considering clause three; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, considering clause twenty; and Matter of the Kankuamo indigenous community, supra note 2, considering clause four 7