3. Moreover, the Commission considered that “the electronic emails mentioned by the State were provided during the month of February of this year, without their being other communications or additional efforts to contact the beneficiary during the following months.” 4. The Court recalls that in its Order of February 13, 2013, it considered that “given the risk and urgency of the situation which Sandra Lorena Ramos and her three minor daughters face, this Court consider[ed] that their protection was necessary by way of the immediate adoption of provisional measures by the State, in light of that provided in the American Convention, in order that all measures be adopted that prevent, in an efficient manner, the occurrence of facts that may affect or place their life and personal integrity in danger.” 5. In this regard, the Court notes that the State only showed that it tried to contact Mrs. Sandra Lorena Ramos by way of the representatives on a date prior to the notification of the Order that was adopted by the Court and subsequently requested information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office on the filing of a complaint by Mrs. Ramos before this institution. As such, the Court considers that the information submitted by the State does not reflect specific actions implemented in order to carry out an analysis of the risk faced by Mrs. Ramos and her daughters and implement measures of protection that correspond to the particular conditions and risk faced by the beneficiaries. 6. Nevertheless, in light of that expressed by the beneficiary Sandra Lorena Ramos in regard to the discontinuation of the threats to her life and personal integrity as well as to those of her daughters, the Court considers that, currently, the situation that led to the adoption of the provisional measures no longer exists and there are no new circumstances that are equally serious or urgent enough to warrant that the measures be maintained. 7. As a consequence, it follows to lift the measures of protection that were ordered. Lifting the measures does not imply that the State, in any way, is relieved of its treaty obligations to protect those in its territory. Therefore, regardless of the existence of specific provisional measures, the State is especially obligated to guarantee the rights of persons at risk. 1 THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of the authority conferred by Articles 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and 27 and 31(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, DECIDES TO: 1 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, considering clause 24, and Matter of Álvarez et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Court of May 22, 2013, considering clause 104. 2