21. The instant measures were ordered due to the prima facie assessment that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency existed as far as the rights to life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries established in the Court’s Order of July 4, 2006, given the attempt on her life that took place on April 21, 2006.10 Subsequently, through the Order of November 29, 2007, the Court ordered the provisional measures in favor of Ms. Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci be maintained given that the information presented by the parties did indicate that the circumstances giving rise to the adoption of the measures had ceased. This was because at that time, the representatives had reported “acts of harassment and intimidation against [the beneficiary] and her family” […] putting her rights to freedom and humane treatment at risk.”11 22. The Tribunal notes that the main protective measures implemented by the State consist of permanent police patrolling, protection and surveillance on the part of officials working for what was at the time known as the Intelligence and Prevention Service Bureau (DISIP) and later on, the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN). The Court appreciates the efforts made by the State with regard to the sheets it has forwarded on the guard services provided (supra Considering 8). 23. For their part, the representatives and the Commission have referred to specific aspects in the implementation of the provisional measures that they argued do not satisfy the needs of protection: the spatial limitations of the measures, the delays caused by the fact that the implementation of the measures is subjected to a judicial proceeding before domestic criminal courts, the alleged inconsistencies and anomalies in the “Registry and Supervision of Custody Service" sheets, the State’s failure to provide travel expenses to the police officers in charge of the protection, and the State’s failure to take steps to allow the beneficiary’s participation in the design and planning of the measures without taking into account her true needs for protection (supra Considering 9 and 10). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the truth is that the State has to date maintained the protective measures in favor of Maria del Rosario Guerreo Galluci and has fulfilled - though irregularly - its duty to report on the implementation of these provisional measures (supra Having Seen 2). 24. Since the Order of November 29, 2007, the parties have not reported new acts of threats or harassment against the beneficiary. The only piece of relevant information on this aspect - presented by the State and the representatives on May 13 and September 16, 2008 - is related to the fact that the beneficiary and another person were accused of the crime of aggravated theft in a criminal proceeding pursued by the Sixth Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of the State of Guárico, with a warrant issued for their arrest (supra Considering 12). Given that three years have elapsed without the representatives presenting any subsequent information or any specific arguments related to the alleged acts of harassment against the beneficiary, the Tribunal does not have any evidence or recent information that would allow it to connect this circumstance to the maintenance of the provisional measures. 25. In addition, as to the criminal proceeding – in which Ms. Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci is supposedly a witness – involving a journalist accused of committing the crime of false accusation (supra Considering 13), the Tribunal notes that although the Commission had previously reported on the criminal proceeding,12 there is no indication of subsequent 10 Cf. Case of Guerrero Gallucci and Martínez Barrio. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering 6, 9 and 13. 11 Case of Guerrero Gallucci and Martínez Barrio. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2007, Considering 15 and 16. 12 Cf. Case of Guerrero Gallucci and Martínez Barrio, supra footnote 11, Having Seen 2(c) and Considering 6. 9