4 * * * 5. That in its Order of May 7, 2004, the Inter-American Court concluded that the situation of Vásquez Chumo as a direct witness in the Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri “has resulted in his allegedly being subject to threats and other intimidating acts, and has also caused him to fear that these acts may continue against himself and his family,” and, similarly, that “from his statements, it can be inferred that he, or the members of his family, may be subject to reprisals as a result of his statements before this Court.” For that reason, the Court “call[ed] upon the State to adopt forthwith all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and the members of his family” (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). Due to the persistence of the described situation, the Court reiterated in its Order of September 22, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause No. 2) its instruction that the State adopt measures of protection in favor of said beneficiaries. Finally, in its Order of May 3, 2008, the Court “request[ed] the State to maintain the necessary measures to protect the life and physical integrity of Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and the members of his family that live with him for an additional period of at least six months following notice of [that] Order, after which the Court [would] evaluate whether or not to maintain [said measures]” (supra Having Seen Clause No. 3). 6. That the State presented its “opinion regarding the continuance of the [p]rovisional [m]easures mandated in [the Court’s] Orders of May 7, 2004, September 22, 2006, [and May 3, 2008]” in favor of Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and his family, and stated that “lifting [the measures] would be convenient […], as no evidence has been found on the existence of threats against their physical integrity or material goods.” 7. That, in that respect, the State reported that the Directorate Against Corruption of the National Police of Peru (Dirección contra la Corrupción de la Policía Nacional del Perú), through its Special Division of Verification, Investigation, and Protection of the National Police of Peru - DIVECEP (División Especial de Comprobación, Investigación y Protección de la Policía Nacional del Perú-DIVECIP), indicated that “from February 2007 to October 2008, no events have been documented that would warrant the continuation of the [p]rovisional [m]easures, that is, that would justify maintaining the measures to protect [Vásquez Chumo] and the members of his family.” It also indicated that the beneficiaries of the measures had adopted “inappropriate conduct […] against the police officers that provided them the […] service [of protection],” and reiterated that Vásquez Chumo has renounced police protection while he carries out his work as a taxi driver. Additionally, the State emphasized that Peru is a “[d]emocratic State in which all human rights are respected and, at the same time, their observance is safeguarded,” and that the State “has not received communications that would evidence threats against the physical integrity or material goods of [Vásquez Chumo] or members of his family, or warrant the continuance of measures of protection” or “a particular police intervention.” Sebastião Martins Silveira” Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo. Provisional measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2008, Considering clause five.