5 14. The November 24, 2005 submission of comments by the representatives, and the accompanying appendixes, filed after being granted a deadline extension, whereby the representatives stated, inter alia, that: a) it is “unnecessary to maintain the provisional measures in force” for the protection of Liliana Velásquez, insofar as the danger situation has already ended, as she is no longer working with Marta Colomina. Accordingly, they requested that the Court rescind the measures; b) they have refused to appear before national courts because these “seek to avoid compliance with the measures ordered by the Court;” c) the need to maintain the provisional measures ordered for the benefit of Colomina in place is proven by the violent events that took place after such measures had been ordered, including “assault with an explosive device,” death threats, and “the posting of her picture at different locations in Caracas, making her out to be an enemy of the revolution.” Furthermore, there has been instigation to violence against her; 15. The December 2, 2005 comments, whereby after being granted a deadline extension, the Inter-American Commission noted, inter alia, that: a) it considers that “it is appropriate for the Court to rescind the provisional measures ordered for the benefit of [Liliana] Velásquez;” b) the State has not provided information regarding which measures it has actually adopted to protect the beneficiaries’ freedom of expression, and c) it is legitimate for the State “to get its own courts involved in its efforts to comply with the provisional measures,” and it considers that the impasse caused by Colomina’s failure to appear at the judicial planning hearings to which she was apparently summoned “should be put behind through the parties’ willingness to hold an initial meeting to express their opinions and positions on the design of the measures.” 16. The January 13, 2006 communication from the Commission, whereby it provided “some additional considerations on the State’s request “regarding the rescission of the measures,” and stated that where the Court “has verified that a risk situation exists, it is the State who has the burden of proving that such risk has been removed. This is the only test, [...] through which their rescission can be justified.” 17. The State’s report of January 24, 2006, whereby, inter alia, it stated that: a) “while awaiting for the truth to be discovered, the State has, through its national courts, implemented whatever measures [it has] deemed necessary to safeguard the life and physical integrity of the petitioners;”