4 c) The information provided by the State and the representative is contradictory as regards the way in which the State has been implementing the measures of protection and the regularity of the protection plan; and, d) It took note of the investigations conducted to clarify what happened in the case of Bonifacio Osorio Ixtapa. However, it observed that, in its reports, the State did not refer to all the investigative measures ordered by the Court. CONSIDERING: 1. That the State ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on May 25, 1978, and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 2. That Article 1(1) of the Convention embodies the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 3. That, under international human rights law, urgent and provisional measures also serve the purpose of protecting fundamental human rights and avoiding irreparable damage to persons. 4. That provisional measures are of an exceptional nature; they are ordered based on the needs for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained, provided the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons they protect subsist. 5. That, according to the Order of the Inter-American Court of November 25, 2006, the State must, inter alia, maintain any measures it has adopted and adopt, forthwith, those necessary to protect the life and integrity of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (supra Having seen paragraph 1). 6. That the State referred to the situation of Bonifacio Osorio Ixtapá, beneficiary of these provisional measures (supra Having seen paragraph 2). That the representative has advised, inter alia, that Mr. Osorio Ixpatá “as a measure of personal security and, owing to the psychological burden and the emotional stress for his family and himself […], has decided to separate himself from his work within the organization, so that, at the present time, he has no direct relationship with ECAP and, to date […] has not reported receiving any other threats or harassment” (supra Having seen paragraph 4). 7. That, based on the information submitted by the representative (supra Having seen paragraph 4), the Court finds that the situation of risk, extreme gravity and urgency that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures to protect the life and integrity of Bonifacio Osorio Ixtapá no longer exists; it therefore considers that the provisional measures ordered in his favor should be lifted, since he no longer works with the ECAP Team.