22. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that for the Court to order the adoption of provisional measures three conditions must be met: a) “extreme gravity”; b) "urgency” and c) an attempt to avoid “irreparable damage to persons.” These three conditions coexist and must be present in all the situations where the intervention of the Tribunal is requested. By the same token, said conditions must continue to exist in order for the Court to maintain the protection it has ordered.16 If one of them ceases to exist, the Tribunal has to assess the relevance of continuing with the measures of protection so ordered.17 23. The Court recalls that, when ordering provisional measures, the standard for the assessment of these requirements by the Court or its President is prima facie, because, at times, presumptions must be made when faced with the need for protection.18 Nevertheless, maintaining measures of protection requires the Court to make a more rigorous assessment regarding the continuation of the situation that gave rise to these measures.19 In order to maintain the provisional measures, it is necessary that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage, still exists, and it must be directly related to the facts that gave rise to the granting of the measures in the case. Therefore, before the requirements of the Court to evaluate the maintenance of the same, said information must be duly accredited and founded.20 24. The Court notes that, upon requesting the rescission of the provisional measures ordered in favor of Mr. William Rodríguez Quintero, the State based such request on two aspects: (i) the situation of the deprivation of liberty and conviction of the beneficiary, and (ii) the alleged absence of new facts proving the persistence of the situation of risk of the beneficiary. 25. In relation to the first reason alleged by the State, the Court notes that the mere deprivation of liberty of the beneficiary is not a sufficient reason for the rescission of the provisional measures ordered in his favor. The situation of extreme gravity and urgency may persist even with respect to beneficiaries who are deprived of liberty, as it has happened in other cases21, thus it is necessary the analysis of each individual case to determine whether to maintain the provisional measures adopted. If a State requests the rescission or modification of provisional measures, it must present sufficient evidence and arguments for the Tribunal to be able to assess that the risk or threat no longer complies with the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable harm. In addition, the burden of proof and argument on the beneficiaries and the Commission will increase with the passage of time and no more threats are issued. Certainly, the fact that there are no new threats may be due, precisely, to 16 See Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering clause 14, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of April 27, 2012, Considering clause 3. 17 See Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering clause 6, and Matter of Wong Ho Wing. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of April 27, 2012, considering clause 3 in fine. 18 See Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of August 30, 2004, Considering clause 10; Matter of A.J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haití. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011. Considering clause 11. 19 See Matter the Indigenous People of Kankuamo. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, Considering clause 7; 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 28. 20 See Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, Considering clause 4, and Case of the Rochela Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of November 19, 2009, Considering clause 15. 21 See Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of November 25, 2010. Considering clauses 41 to 43. Matter of Kawas Fernández. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of July 5, 2011. Considering clause 15. 9