measure “[the Court] emphasized the general duty to protect that falls upon the States as to the people related to the case before the Tribunal,” which was different from the provisional measure ordered in this case, in respect of whom the Court deemed that "there was a situation that met prima facie the conditions of "extreme gravity" and "urgency" as well as the need to "avoid irreparable damage" and ordered the State the implementation of certain protective measures.28 33. In this regard, the Court considers it is appropriate to clarify that the provision established in its Order of July 2009 and reiterated in its Order of August 2010, whereby it decided to “continue monitoring” compliance with the obligation to guarantee the rights of the family members who rendered a statement, established in operative paragraph 11 of the Judgment, in the context of the procedure of provisional measures, did not and does not constitute an order for the adoption of provisional measures under Article 63(2) of the Convention. As was indicated by the Tribunal upon issuing said decision, the provisional measures adopted in this case differ from the aforementioned obligation because the Court considered that the beneficiaries of the provisional measures were in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and there was a need to avoid irreparable harm to them, which had not happened in relation to the beneficiaries of said obligation. 34. Accordingly, as regards the provision of operative paragraph four of the Order of July 2009 and operative paragraph one of the Order of August 2010, it would not be appropriate to rescind the provisional measures, since such measures have not been ordered. However, based on the State’s request and the information provided by the parties and the Commission, the Court considers it is relevant to assess the enforcement of said provision, in order to determine whether monitoring of this obligation should continue or, otherwise, if it should cease. 35. The Court recalls that this measure of reparation was ordered for fear of retaliation expressed by the most of the victims’ relatives who rendered a statement before the Court in this case.29 Moreover, the Court notes that seven years and nine months have passed since the notification of the Judgment, and the representatives or declarants30 before the Court had not informed on specific and concrete situations revealing a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable harm. Additionally, almost three years have passed since the Court decided to transfer monitoring of this obligation to the procedure of provisional measures and the declarants, their relatives or their representatives had not informed the Court of specific and concrete facts that put them in a situation of risk. On the contrary, the representatives had informed the Court of the absence of specific facts that put their safety at risk, and had expressly indicated that “the beneficiaries, in favor of whom it was necessary to adopt material protective measures, are the members of the Rodríguez Quintero family,” current beneficiaries of the provisional measures. 36. The Court takes note of the observations of the representatives and the Commission, according to which all the family members of the victims in the instant case may face acts of harassment and retaliation that could violate their rights, due to the investigations conducted at the domestic level, as well as the alleged “campaign of […] stigmatization of the relatives” of the victims of the cases decided by the Court (supra Considering clause 30). However, the Court considers that the risk described by the representatives constitutes a situation of potential danger, not confined to specific facts from which a situation of extreme gravity and 28 Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, Considering clause 49. 29 See Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C N° 109, para. 280 30 With the exception of Salomón Flórez Contreras, Sandra Belinda Montero Fuentes, and Wilmar Rodríguez Quintero, who are or have been beneficiaries of these provisional measures. 12