19 paragraph 280 of the Judgment), the State has pointed out that it referred to this aspect within the procedure of the provisional measures ordered by this Court (supra Having Seen clauses 4 and 20). 42. That in the hearing, the State mentioned that this aspect does not have to do with a measure of reparation, but to the protection of witnesses and next-of-kin for having given their testimony in the proceeding before the Court, which constitute duplication of proceedings. The State also asserts that the people who are protected by the Judgment in paragraph 280, and who are not included in the provisional measures, have not declared a situation of exceptional risk and, as a result, would not need special protective measures. In addition, the State considers that the mechanism of the provisional measures is the appropriate one to monitor the protective measures, due to the fact that the provisional measures are adopted as the result of a risk that meets the conventional and regulatory characteristics, while a measure of reparation is adopted as the result of the commission of an international illegal act, of the subsequent international responsibility of the State, of the damage and the purpose of that reparation would be to return the situation to its previous state or compensate the violations as better as possible. Furthermore, the processing of the provisional measures, due to its own nature, is designed to follow up the protection of the people who are in danger; therefore, it is the suitable mechanism. Besides, the processing of the provisional measures calls for the sufficient flexibility required by the protective measures, whereas the measures of reparation are of a different nature; in practice, the follow-up of the situation of risk is done by means of the procedure of provisional measures. In this sense, the State requested the Court to maintain "the follow-up the protection of the people by means of the mechanism of the provisional measures”, which the State considers to be more suitable and to declare that the State is not obliged to inform on this aspect in the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment. 43. That the representatives contend that the Court, when ordering this measure of reparation, was aware of the fact that, due to the particularities of the case and the statements made, the next-of-kin were exposed to a great risk. They consider that this aspect constitute a measure of reparation based on a non-repetition approach, which consists in the duty to protect the people who rendered a statement and their next-of-kin and that such duty must be taken up by the State in a permanent way, in order not to cause them any damage in their lives and personal integrities; therefore, they deem the measure should be maintained and must be subjected to follow-up. In view of the fact that the protective measure ordered as a reparation in a Judgment is the result of a trial and supporting evidence, the representatives claim, such measure takes priority over the provisional measure where the evidence is summarily assessed. Moreover, they pointed out that not all the beneficiaries of the provisional measures are covered by the measure of reparation. They consider that the fact the follow-up of the protective measures is done within the procedure to monitor compliance does not affect the purpose of the measure of reparation. 44. That the Commission limited to mention that the measures of reparation established in the Judgment and the provisional measures ordered “supplement and offer feedback among themselves” and that the benefit of maintaining both mechanisms is justified by the nature of the situation in the case at hand.