Colombia temporarily and until they report that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency has been surmounted. To this end, the beneficiaries, their representatives and the State should reach an agreement on ways and means of protection for each beneficiary.” c) Considerations of the Court. 17. The Court observes that despite some discrepancies and difficulties, the State has implemented protective measures to the benefit of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler that include his mother, María Elena Soler de Gutiérrez, and his son, Kevin Daniel Gutiérrez Niño. Furthermore, the Court notes that the State has reported that, according to the most recent risk assessments of Mr. Gutiérrez Soler and his mother, they face an extremely high level of risk. However, the State has not informed the Court of any specific measures adopted to the benefit of Mrs. Soler de Gutiérrez, nor has the Court received precise information on young Gutiérrez Niño. In this regard, the Court finds it would be pertinent to receive precise, updated information from the State on the situation of these three beneficiaries. Furthermore, the Court requires information from the State on the events recently reported by the representatives concerning the presence of certain individuals in the place where Mr. Gutiérrez Soler lives (supra considering 13). 19. Furthermore, the Court takes into consideration that the State mentioned that it had not received information from the representatives on Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez Rubiano and Leidy Caterine Gutiérrez, and measures of protection had not been requested for them. In this regard, the Court recalls that in the order of July 9, 2009 (supra Having Seen 3), it had stated that “the information provided […] [was] neither clear enough nor sufficient to understand what constitute[d] the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency of the possibility of suffering irreparable harm” of these persons. In this regard, the Court maintained the provisional measures to their benefit, but indicated that “it hope[d] that the information submitted and the corresponding observations of the parties [would] address this point in detail.” The Court observes that the only information on these beneficiaries received from the representatives is dated August 28, 2009 (supra Having Seen 6), to the effect that they are living in Bogotá and that “no specific situations of danger have occurred recently and, consequently, the adoption of individual measures of protection has not been requested.” 20. The Court also takes into consideration that the State has indicated that it has not received information about the beneficiaries who live outside Colombian territory, nor has it received requests to adopt measures of protection to their benefit. The State has only been informed that said beneficiaries intend to return to the country. As has already been mentioned in this order (supra Considering 16), in the brief of August 28, 2009, the representatives committed to submitting information to the Court on these people. However, to date, this information has not been provided to the Court. The Court recalls that in the order of July 9, 2009 (supra Having Seen 3), it stressed that it had repeatedly asked the representatives to provide information on the situation of risk and the location of the beneficiaries, including those who are outside Colombian territory, and that, despite this, the information provided was partial. Consequently, the Court asked the parties, particularly the representatives and the beneficiaries, to forward more detailed information in the future because “they are the ones who are most aware of their situation.” 21. In order to maintain the provisional measures, the verified situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the need to avoid irreparable harm must be ongoing, as must their direct relationship to the facts that justified granting the provisional measures in the instant case; accordingly, in view of the Court’s requirements for assessing whether to maintain the measures, this information must be duly authenticated and founded.5 The 5 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, third considering paragraph; Matter of Leonel Rivera et al. 6