(supra Having seen para. 13). Furthermore, in its observations of January 16, 2012, the Commission emphasized that “the information provided by the State regarding the security of the potential beneficiaries, and on the investigations concerning the various threats received by the victims, remains the same as before the presentation of the request for provisional measures, which has been brought to the attention of the Inter-American Court, and that no new evidence has been provided for analysis.” 19. Finally, the Commission considered that in this matter a situation of extreme gravity and urgency exists, as required by Article 63.2 of the Convention for the Court to order measures of protection, given that there have been cycles of threats and harassment against the petitioners, which place their lives and personal integrity at risk, as well as “the ability of Mrs. Martínez [Martínez] and Mr. Guzmán [Ordaz] to continue their work in defense of human rights,” which constitute the point of irreparability of the consequences that this request seeks to avoid. 20. For its part, the State noted that prior to the Commission’s request for precautionary measures, it immediately became aware of the facts by way of the authorities of the Chiapas Government, began the relevant investigation and provided the beneficiaries with protection measures. Specifically, it reported that with regard to the alleged threat received on November 24, an Administrative record was opened which was raised to the rank of a Preliminary Investigation AP0004/FEPONGDDH/M1/2010 and in which more than 79 procedures were carried out (supra Having Seen para. 4(a)). As to the alleged threats of October 20, 2011, the State argued that it opened Administrative record AA 0010/FEPONGDDH-MI/2011, for which it carried out various procedures (supra Having Seen para. 4(k)). In this regard, it indicated that “Mrs. Margarita Martínez’ assistance is required to obtain more evidentiary elements that may help to clarify the facts under investigation.” Moreover, it noted that the representatives stated that “it is necessary to eradicate the source of the risk facing the beneficiaries, for which reason they consider it appropriate not to file any further complaints for the moment.” 21. Finally, the State indicated that “it is necessary that the Court consider that as soon as a new threat has arisen, which has not materialized, the [S]tate has acted immediately with the investigations, together with the fact that the beneficiaries have protection measures that will be improved, in accordance with the decisions taken at the meeting of December 1, 2011.”. In particular, it argued that the Commission's claim that “the Chiapas state government has [...] refused to investigate its officials” is unfounded. 22. The State concluded that the implementation of the precautionary measures has prevented irreparable harm to Margarita Martínez Martínez and Adolfo Guzmán Ordaz, as well as to the children Ada Saraí Martínez Martínez and Eduardo Abel León Martínez, and that it is not appropriate to adopt provisional measures in this matter, because it is not a case of extreme gravity and urgency. Considerations of the Court 23. Based on the foregoing, this Court notes that the Inter-American Commission has argued that there have been failings in the implementation of the protective measures adopted in the context of the precautionary measures, which is evidenced, according to the Commission, by the cyclical occurrence of threats, harassment and stalking that took place until at least October 2011, while these measures were in effect. It has also alleged a lack of diligent investigation of those facts. However, the Commission has not presented specific information to substantiate the fact that, at present, these threats, acts of harassment and 14