6 Accordingly, the State requested that the provisional measures ordered in favor of Élida González Vergel should be lifted. Moreover, the State indicated that “should Mrs. GONZÁLEZ VERGEL eventually reappear and if was considered necessary […], it did not see any obstacle to proceeding to order provisional measures in her favor once again.” 9. That in its communication of April 12, 2005, the Commission indicated, inter alia, that the “representatives of [Élida] González Vergel were in the best position to express a position on the steps to take in the implementation of the provisional measures”. On August 12, 2005, the Commission stated, inter alia, that it was not possible to make a presumption about the situation of danger of Élida González Vergel, or her intention to remove herself from the “sphere of action of the State.” The Commission also stated that, “for different reasons, […] it would not object to lifting the measures in favor of [Élida] González Vergel. The Commission consider[ed] that the usefulness of measures of protection in the inter-American system depend[ed], to a great extent, on the real possibility that they [could] be implemented.” 10. That, in their brief of June 13, 2005, the representatives indicated, inter alia, that “they ha[d] been unable to establish contact with Élida González [Vergel] and, hence, ha[d] not included information on her situation.” 11. That it is essential that provisional measures are maintained fully in force and produce the relevant effects until the Court orders that they be lifted or notifies the State of its decision to this effect.2 12. That provisional measures are exceptional in nature; they are ordered in function of the needs for protection and, once ordered must be maintained, provided the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by them subsist.3 13. That, from the information presented by the State, the Commission and the representatives, it emerges that the whereabouts of Élida González Vergel have not been known for more than five years. In this regard, the Court observes that the usefulness (effet util) of provisional measures depends, to a great extent, on the real possibility that they can be implemented. The parties agree that the eventual lifting of the measures does not imply a ruling on the beneficiary’s situation of danger, which must be evaluated when information is received on her whereabouts. Having examined the information received, the Court considers that it is not possible to continue the provisional measures granted in favor of Élida González Vergel. 14. That the State must provide the Court with evidence of Gonzalo Arias Alturo’s statement of his wishes in relation to whether the provisional measures ordered in his favor should be maintained (supra Having seen paragraphs 4(b), 5(b) and 6(b)). 2 Cf Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, sixth considering paragraph; and Matter of Lililana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 1, 2005, tenth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 2, seventh considering paragraph; and Matter of Lililana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 2, eleventh considering paragraph.