steps taken to determine and implement appropriate measures of protection to guarantee [the] life and physical integrity” of Mrs. Luz Almanza. 99. The Court notes that although the State had the obligation to protect the members of ASFADDES in the organization’s offices, the Court cannot be indifferent to the series of threats and harassment that Mrs. Almanza is alleged to have suffered between 2008 and 2013, and which constitute prima facie a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that justifies an extension of provisional measures, ex officio, in her favor. The Court takes into account the fact that Mrs. Almanza received direct and serious threats after the implementation of the protection scheme. In that regard, international protection can play an important role in reinforcing the protection provided at the domestic level in this case of extreme risk, addressing Mrs. Almanza’s situation with special care and attention. The Court takes cognizance of the various measures adopted by the State to protect Mrs. Almanza and awaits further detailed information on efforts aimed at strengthening the implementation of her protection scheme. 4. Regarding the investigations 100. The representatives argued that the State had not provided “any information whatsoever on the investigative processes and inquiries, both of a criminal and a disciplinary nature, regarding the numerous incidents and attacks committed against the beneficiaries of the provisional measures” and that “the processes and investigations, both criminal and disciplinary […] are of the utmost importance to ensure the effectiveness of the provisional measures, given that these could produce useful results leading to the discovery of those responsible for those actions, in order to punish them and, consequently, neutralize the risk factors and sources of danger to the physical and personal integrity of the beneficiaries.” 101. The State argued that “within the provisional measures procedure only arguments relating to the beneficiaries’ situation of extreme gravity and urgency are acceptable.” However, the State provided information on five investigations that are being conducted by the Prosecutor General’s Office, specifically the Bogotá Office, into the alleged crimes of conspiracy to commit a crime, threats and abuse of authority through arbitrary or unjust actions in relation to the incidents reported by Erick Arellana, Andrea Solangie Torres Bautista, Yannette Bautista and Alejandro Álvarez Gómez. 102. The Commission considered that “the proper conduct of the investigations is of vital importance to guarantee the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries, particularly considering that their situation of vulnerability is associated with their work as human rights defenders and that the continuity of those tasks is precisely the circumstance that places them in a situation of risk.” 103. However, the Court reiterates 19 that a supposed lack of investigation by a State does not necessarily constitute a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that 19 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 6, 2009, Considering para. 24, and Matter Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of February 8, 2013, Considering para. 36. 23