the effectiveness of the protection provided or the dissuasive effects of the Court's order. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has considered that the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats or intimidation, coupled with the absence of an imminent risk, may lead to the rescission of the provisional measures. 22 26. In relation to the second reason put forward by the State, the Tribunal notes that the representatives have not submitted information regarding recent facts, which may prove that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists to the detriment of the beneficiary William Rodríguez Quintero. The Court notes that, on repeated occasions, the representatives were required to refer specifically to said request for the rescission of these measures (supra Having Seen clause 6). However, instead of proving the persistence of a current situation of risk for beneficiary William Rodríguez Quintero, the representatives objected to the lack of information from the State regarding the measures of protection adopted within the prison, as well as the lack of implementation of the measure of reparation consisting in the provision of medical and psychological care. The Court notes that the information and comments regarding the compliance with said measure of reparation should be assessed in the context of the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment. 27. The Court recalls that provisional measures are of an exceptional nature, that they are ordered according to the needs of protection, and refer to a specific temporal situation and, because of their very nature, they cannot be perpetuated indefinitely.23 In this sense, given that almost two years have passed since the last Order of the Court and up to date, the Tribunal has not received specific information proving a current situation of risk for the beneficiary, the Court considers it is appropriate to rescind the provisional measures ordered in favor of William Rodríguez Quintero. 28. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court considers it is relevant to recall that “since the State is the institution responsible for detention establishments, it is in a special position of guarantor of the rights of those under its custody.”24 Additionally, the Court has held that regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obliged to guarantee the rights of the people in circumstances of deprivation of liberty.25 3. Regarding the provision established in operative paragraphs four of the Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, and one of the Order of the Court of August 26, 2010 29. The State requested an assessment of the enforcement of the provisional measures in favor of the persons identified in the aforementioned operative paragraphs. In this regard, the Colombia stressed that the representatives have not informed on situations of extreme gravity and urgency in the case of these beneficiaries, nor on the specific and concrete facts that put their lives and personal integrity at risk, or have they even requested the implementation of 22 See Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM . Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008; Considering clause 12, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian-origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of February 29, 2012; Considering clause 45. 23 See Matter the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of August 30, 2010, Considering clause 70, and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of August 30, 2010, Considering clause 46. 24 Case of Neira Alegría et al V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011, Series C No. 224, para. 42. 25 See Matter of Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center, Request for Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering clause 11; Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the President of the Court of December 1, 2009, Considering clause 14. 10