6 the last two years since November 8, 2006, the beneficiaries have not reported any threats or acts endangering their lives or physical integrity, but have rather referred to matters pertaining to the investigation of the facts that prompted the adoption of these provisional measures. 15. That, notwithstanding some difficulties in the implementation of the provisional measures, the Tribunal observes that during the term they have been in force, the State has taken different steps to protect Leonel Rivero-Rodríguez, María de los Ángeles Espinosa-Sánchez, Augusto César Sandino Rivero-Espinosa, Luisa Amanda RiveroEspinosa and María Katherina Rivero-Espinosa, such as escort and patrol services and the provision of cellular telephones with emergency telephone numbers. 16. That the State has complied with its duty to report to the Tribunal regularly on the steps taken to implement the instant measures. 17. That, as has been noted by the Court in other requests for provisional measures, it cannot consider the merits of arguments pertaining to issues other than those strictly related to the extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Such other issues may only be properly brought before the Court through contentious cases or requests for advisory opinions.6 18. Para el Tribunal las manifestaciones de los representantes en el sentido de que las investigaciones penales deben continuar o la alegada falta de información sobre las mismas, no constituyen circunstancias de extrema gravedad y urgencia que ameriten el mantenimiento de las actuales medidas provisionales7. En todo caso, el análisis de la efectividad de las investigaciones y procedimientos referentes a los hechos que motivaron estas medidas provisionales correspondería al examen del fondo del caso en conocimiento de la Comisión Interamericana8. 19. That in light of the foregoing, the Tribunal believes that, in the instant case, the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable damage to the rights of beneficiaries that prompted the adoption of the instant provisional measures have ceased to exist. 6 Cfr. Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, Considering clause 6. Matter of Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering clause 10; and Matter of “Globovisión” Television Station. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2007, Considering clause 14. 7 Cfr. Matter of Gallardo-Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding the United States of Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 11, 2007, Considering clause 11, and Case of the Constitutional Court, Provisional Measures regarding Peru; supra note 5, Considering clause 4 8 On August 22, 2007, the Inter-American Commission, in response to the Court’s request for information regarding the procedural status of the instant case before said body, reported that “the petition was assigned number 12,229 ‘Digna Ochoa et al.’ and it is in the admissibility stage”. Cfr. Matter of Pilar Noriega et al. Provisional Measures regarding the United States of Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause 14.