protective measures in their favor. The State highlighted that it is unaware of the location or current situation of risk of said beneficiaries, that the representatives are unaware if they require the protection of the State, and that an alleged situation of potential risk “is not sufficient.” When referring to the allegations made by the representatives regarding a possible risk associated with open investigations at the domestic level, it stated that, inter alia, the representatives have not demonstrated situations of risk and harassment as a result of the investigations related to this case. 30. The representatives indicated that although they have not received information regarding new specific and concrete facts that have put the beneficiaries at risk, “risk factors related to the activity of the family members in their search for justice and truth still persist.”26 They pointed out that the absence of new facts that have jeopardized the safety of the beneficiaries did not mean that the situation had returned to normal. According to the representatives, “the family members [of the victims] may face acts of harassment and retaliation that could violate their rights” due to their protests regarding events related to the monument ordered by the Court as a measure of reparation, as well as for the commemoration of the 24 years from the massacre of the 19 Tradesmen. In recent months “there has been a true campaign of criticisms against the decisions of the […] Court as well as stigmatization of the family members in these cases ruled by the Court […] in which influential and notable former officials participated.” According to the representatives, in various media communications, the victims have been shown as smugglers dedicated to illegal activities, “impliedly suggesting that those family members were not even worthy of Inter-American protection, nor of measures of reparation.” According to the representatives, another of the risk factors comes from the criminal proceedings conducted for the massacre of the 19 Tradesmen, which extends to all family members, whether or not they were parties to the civil action. Thus, they stated that “not only does a risk persist against the safety of the beneficiaries of the [p]rovisional [m]easures, but also these could be magnified,” therefore they believe that “there are well-founded fears that some family members may face acts of harassment and retaliation that could violate their fundamental rights”. 31. The Inter-American Commission requested the Court “to maintain the provisional measures”, “as long as the risk factors [mentioned by the representatives] persist", “especially, in relation to the expediting of proceedings and participation in activities at the domestic level which are connected with the clarification of the facts in the contentious case and the search for justice". It insisted in that the State has not presented information regarding the investigations into the facts that gave rise to these provisional measures, “not even if these measures had been related or formed part of the investigation into the forced disappearance of the victims in the case.” [The Commission noted that the State was requesting the rescission of the measures without informing on the measures of protection and “without providing elements that may suggest an identifiable change in the situation of risk,” for which it considers that there are signs of risk in the context of the case, and “it is of [the] opinion that the maintenance of these measures is appropriate.” 32. The Court recalls that, in its Order of July 8, 2009, it ordered to “[c]ontinue monitoring compliance with the obligation to guarantee the life, safety and security [of 13 family members who rendered statements before this Court and their respective families], according to what is established in operative paragraph 11 of the Judgment, in the context of the implementation of the provisional measures.”27 On that occasion, the Court considered that by means of said 26 They informed that Mrs. Rosalbina Suárez de Sauza had passed away “for which she cannot be considered a beneficiary of the provisional measures any longer,” but the situation of her family group must continue being subjected to the procedure to monitor compliance by the Court. 27 Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, Operative paragraph 4. 11