reasonably overcome by means of measures through which the State has made an effort to respond to the specific requirements of the beneficiary (supra Considering paras. 15 and 16). 26. In addition, the Court takes note of the incident reported by the representatives that, allegedly, on November 4, 2011 a group of people wearing badges of a State investigative agency attached to the Attorney General’s Office had inspected and photographed the offices of the Civic Committee of Meta, as well as the information provided by the State in the sense that it would be implementing the necessary actions to judicially investigate those actions (supra Considering paras. 18 to 21). As to the State’s commitment to analyze and adopt measures regarding the offices of the Civic Committee, the Court confirms that the parties forwarded information in this regard during 2011, but did not do so during 2012. Consequently, the Court recalls that the measures of protection must be agreed with the beneficiary and her representatives 13 and understands that the State considers that the “police inspections” currently carried out in the beneficiary’s workplace would be sufficient to prevent any risks against her materializing at her workplace (supra Considering paragraph 22). 27. The Court recalls that it is not sufficient for the State to adopt specific measures of protection; it is also necessary to ensure that these are implemented effectively, so that the risk to those whose protection is sought ceases. 14 In relation to the protection required by the beneficiary Islena Rey, the Court considers it pertinent that in its next report the State refer to the specific measures taken to prevent the repetition of events such as those of November 4, 2011. 28. The Court considers it appropriate to maintain the provisional measures in favor of Islena Rey and, therefore, requires the State to maintain, and, where applicable, to adopt all the measures necessary to protect her life and personal integrity. However, the Court also deems it necessary to recall that provisional measures have an exceptional character, are ordered based on the need for protection and are related to a specific temporary situation and, by their very nature, cannot be perpetuated indefinitely. 15 In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize that these measures have been in force before this Court for more than sixteen years (supra Considering paragraph 5). Likewise, the Court appreciates that Colombia has been implementing a protection scheme in favor of Mrs. Rey and that it has made an effort to meet the specific requirements of the beneficiary. According to the information provided, dialogue and consensus between the parties have made it possible to gradually overcome the problems that have arisen in a reasonable way, having regard to the beneficiary’s requirements, and there is greater clarity regarding the regulatory framework that governs the current protection scheme, the functions of the private operator that provides the protection and the direct responsibility that the State has acknowledged with regard to its obligations to protect the beneficiary (supra Considering paras. 7 to 16). 13 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of July 4, 2006, Operative paragraph 4, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 16. 14 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 26, 2010, Considering paragraph 26, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 12. 15 Cf. Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of August 30, 2010, Considering paragraph 70, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of June 26, 2012, Considering paragraph 27. 9