4 thereof, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on December 16, 1998. 2. That when ordering the adoption of provisional measures on November 30, 2001, and their maintenance on April 20, 2004, on June 29, 2005, and on November 24, 2005, in the instant case (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 1), the Court considered that the presented background prima facie indicated the existence of a situation of urgent and serious danger for the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries. 3. That out of the briefs forwarded by the State (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 4) and the remarks made by the representatives and the Inter-American Commission (supra Having Seen paragraphs No. 5 and 6) it arises that beneficiaries Pilar Noriega-García, Bárbara Zamora-López and the members of the family Ochoa y Plácido have not informed the Inter-American Court -over the last years- on any threats against them or any other act which may endanger their life or physical integrity; they have only referred to problems related to the investigation of the facts which motivated the adoption of the provisional measures. 4. That as to beneficiary Pilar Noriega García, in response to the Court request for detailed and updated information on the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 3), in their brief dated September 21, 2007, the beneficiaries reproduced the information provided by the beneficiary, who did not inform the Court on any threats over the last years. On the contrary, the beneficiary referred to the lack of information on the investigations of the threats prior to 2001, which gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures. Furthermore, in that brief the beneficiary insisted on that “as long as the pertinent investigation is not carried out and exhausted […] and […] information is not provided in the proper manner, the State is failing to comply with an essential part of the provisional measures", and that "as long as the results are not reported, the measures must be kept so as to safeguard her physical integrity and safety.” On the other hand, the Court observes that at the public hearing of February 5, 2008, no specific recent facts which could imply a situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding the beneficiary were informed either. 5. That as to beneficiary Bárbara Zamora-López, in response to the Court request for detailed and updated information on the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 3), in their brief dated September 21, 2007, the representatives did not inform on any risk fact against her life or physical integrity. Moreover, they informed that the beneficiary herself expressed that “over the last years she has not received any threats.” Notwithstanding the above, they considered that “the risk of a new aggression continues to exist as long as the source of the intimidation and the responsible parties” of the fact occurred in March 2002, and which motivated the adoption of measures in her favor are not identified. The representatives stated that the beneficiary was not able to obtain a copy of the decision which deemed the investigation of the alleged threats against her concluded, as well as the lack of notice of said measure. They further stated that the beneficiary “did not have access to the