8 21. That by means of communication of August 12, 2008 (supra Having Seen clause 7), the representatives were requested to provide information regarding Ms. Flores-Martínez’s intention to return to Honduras, despite which, no information was submitted to the Court. Consequently, the Court does not have sufficient elements to consider that Ms. Flores-Martínez wishes to return to the country, which is why maintaining the provisional measures ordered in her behalf would serve no purpose. 22. That, furthermore, from the information submitted by the parties, inter alia, it follows that since at least September 2005 Gregoria Flores-Martínez has been abroad, and considering that the provisional measures adopted were aimed at protecting the right to life and physical integrity of Ms. Flores-Martínez, who faced a situation of extreme gravity and urgency as a result of being a witness in the case of López-Álvarez, the Court deems that said risk has disappeared. Accordingly, the Court deems that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures intended to protect the life and physical integrity of Gregoria Flores-Martínez no longer exists, wherefore it deems that the provisional measures ordered in her behalf must be lifted. 23. That the Court has pointed out that the alleged failure by the State to conduct an effective investigation into the facts which prompted the adoption of the present provisional measures does not amount in and of itself to a situation of extreme 7 gravity and urgency justifying that provisional measures be maintained. In this regard, when a situation of extreme gravity and urgency was evidenced, the Court ordered that an investigation into the facts which prompted such situation be conducted; notwithstanding, the violations of the Convention resulting from the alleged lack of effectiveness in the investigation are to be examined in a contentious 8 case and not in the framework of a request for provisional measures, except where the failure to investigate is clearly related to extreme conditions posing a risk to life and physical integrity. With respect to the foregoing, the representatives’ allegations that the provisional measures should be maintained until the facts have been effectively investigated into and the eventual punishment of those responsible for the threats imposed, do not amount to a circumstance of extreme gravity and urgency, which, together with the lack of information regarding the beneficiary’s intention to return to the country, have led the Court to consider that the present provisional 9 measures should not be maintained. * * * Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 5, Considering clause 4; Case of the GómezPaquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of May 3, 2008, Considering clause 7, and Matter of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia”. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, Considering clause 36. 7 8 Cf. Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, supra note 6, Considering clause 16; Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of July 3, 2007, Considering clause 23; and Matter of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia”, supra note 7, Considering clause 36. 9 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 5, Considering clause 4; Matter of GallardoRodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of July 11, 2007, Considering clause 11; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 5, Considering clause 14.