the Vice Minister for Political Relations of the Ministry of the Interior and delegates of the National Protection Unit, in order to discuss the situation.” 62. In its report of May 16, 2011, the Commission noted that “the State has not provided information on the measures adopted regarding [Mr.] Bautista, despite the fact that the last risk assessment produced an `extraordinary´ result”. In a report dated May 31, 2012, the Commission considered that, “even though some beneficiaries decide to leave the organization, they not only continue to carry out the same activities –as reported by the representatives- but they may also remain involved in the investigations and processes for which they allegedly suffered threats and harassment, and which gave rise and effect to these measures. An example of this is the information presented in relation to Erik Arellana and his relatives, who allegedly suffered harassment and were followed until, at least, February of 2012.” 63. The Court notes that the State reported on the measures of protection adopted in favor of Mr. Erick Arellana in 2009, without subsequently providing detailed information on the protection measures in effect. In response to the events of February 2012, the State merely indicated that Mr. Erick Arellana has provisional measures. For their part, the representatives have not reported any situations since that date which would constitute an extreme risk for Mr. Arellana; therefore the Court considers it appropriate to lift the provisional measures regarding this beneficiary. 64. Nevertheless, the Court emphasizes that its jurisdiction allows it the possibility of independently assessing whether a situation of extreme gravity and urgency exists, regardless of the determinations made by the domestic authorities concerning the alleged risk suffered by a person. In this regard, given that the last risk assessment carried out for Erik Arellana in 2008 showed that he faced an “extraordinary risk”, the Court takes note of the domestic measures of protection adopted by the State and considers that these should be maintained while the situation of risk identified by the State persists. The Court will not monitor those actions which the State shall implement in the context of the principle of good faith and in compliance with its general international obligations. 3.5. María Eugenia Cárdenas 65. In their report of January 9, 2009 the representatives stated that this beneficiary “is no longer part of [ASFADDES] and they [had] no knowledge of any situations of risk facing her.” In a report of April 17, 2013, the representatives stated that “María Eugenia Cárdenas has not had links with ASFADDES for several years.” 66. The State argued that “the petitioners have not provided up-to-date information showing an ongoing situation of gravity and urgency regarding […] María Eugenia Cárdenas.” 67. The Commission made no comment regarding this beneficiary. 68. The Court notes that the representatives have not provided any information on this beneficiary’s risk situation since it requested such information regarding her risk status and urgent needs through the Order of February 8, 2008. Furthermore, the Court points out that the representatives expressly stated that they had no knowledge of any situations of risk to her (supra Considering para. 65). In the absence of information showing that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists, this 16