9 the American Convention to restrictions rendering the Tribunal’s function and, thus, the system of protection of human rights embodied in the Convention inoperative.4 * 12. That, as regards the information provided by the State concerning the possibility of creating a “Special Team to coordinate and supervise compliance with the provisional measures” (supra Having Seen clause No. 8), the Court will insist that the implementation and planning of provisional measures is to be entrusted to the appropriate state authorities, who are required to involve the beneficiaries or their representatives in order that the measures are carried out in a diligent, effective manner.5 * 13. That the representatives have insisted on arguing that the State failed to comply with its obligation to conduct an exhaustive, conclusive investigation of the facts that led to the provisional measures in the instant case, which facts are the subject matter of a decision to “discontinue without prejudice” the investigation opened by the Office of the Attorney General. 14. That the Inter-American Commission stated that in this proceeding for provisional measures it will not analyze the conclusions reached by the State on the subject of the investigation of the facts, as this is an issue pertaining to the merits that will be dealt with at the appropriate stage of case No. 519/03, which is currently pending before the Commission. * 15. That the State requested that the Court rescind the provisional measures on the grounds that the beneficiaries are no longer in a situation of danger or threat. Moreover, both the Commission and the representatives requested that the Court maintain such measures in place as there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the risk of irreparable damage has been removed. 16. That the State argued that three years have elapsed throughout which the lives of the beneficiaries have not been in impending danger; however, the beneficiaries reported that, in addition to the physical attacks perpetrated three years ago, the continued threats against Colomina through flyers and telephone calls, among other actions, show that the risk remains current. 17. That, as per the information submitted by the representatives, Colomina is being protected by two police officers of the Municipality of Chacao, such protection 4 Cf. Matters of Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 4, 2004; Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 20, 2003, No. 13. 5 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 2005, Considering clause No. 11.