9 24. That regarding Martina Reyes-Marcelino, Ms. Flores-Martínez’s foster mother, and Ms. Flores-Martínez’s children, Diego Armando Aranda, Sherly Martina Flores, Dennis Rosario Ramos-Flores and Jenny Zelene Zapata-Flores, the Court notes that neither the representatives nor the Commission have submitted the information required by means of communications of the Secretariat of July 7, 2006; August 1 and September 5, 2007 (supra Having Seen clause 6); and August 12, 2008 (supra Having Seen Clause 7), stating whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency which prompted the adoption of provisional measures in their behalf still persists. Furthermore, in their various observations, the representatives referred to Gregoria Flores-Martínez’s next of kin in a general manner, without describing the situation that each of them is currently facing, nor justifying the existence and persistence of the conditions of extreme gravity and urgency or the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons which are required to maintain the provisional measures ordered by the Court in the beneficiaries’ behalf. 25. That the prima facie standard of evidence in a case and the application of presumptions when assessing a request for protection have led […] this Court to order provisional measures on a number of occasions;”10 notwithstanding, in order to maintain such provisional measures, it is necessary that the proven situation of extreme gravity and urgency or the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons persist and be directly linked to the events which prompted the adoption of provisional measures in the case at hand;11 therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the Court to assess whether the measures should be maintained in effect, the information must be duly grounded and proven. 26. That, accordingly, regarding the beneficiaries Martina Reyes-Marcelino, Diego Armando Aranda, Sherly Martina Flores, Dennis Rosario Ramos-Flores and Jenny Zelene Zapata-Flores, though the requirements established have not been met, over the three years during which the provisional measures in their behalf have been in effect no acts of interference by the State with the above beneficiaries’ right to life and physical integrity have been reported. Therefore, the Court deems it reasonable to presume that the situation regarding said beneficiaries no longer fulfills the requirements set forth in Article 63(2) of the Convention and, therefore, it finds it relevant to lift the measures adopted in their behalf. * * * 27. That, as noted by the Court in prior cases, lifting these provisional measures does not mean that the State has complied with its conventional obligations to continue with the investigations at the domestic level to identify and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the facts of the case12 who have violated conventional rights in detriment of Gregoria Flores-Martínez, as well into the threats against other members of the community. 10 Cf. Inter alia, Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.). Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 29, 2001, Considering clause 7; Case of Gloria Giralt de GarcíaPrieto et al., Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Court of September 26, 2006, Considering clause 10; and Matter of Adrián Meléndez-Quijano et al. Provisional Measures regarding El Salvador. Order of the Court of March 23, 2007, Considering clause 9. 11 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, Considering clause 21; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. supra note 2, Considering clause 16; and Matter of Leonel Rivero et al., supra note 2, Considering clause 13. 12 Cf. Matter of Colotenango regarding Guatemala, supra note 4, Considering clause 14.