5 11. That the State, in relation to the failure to investigate several facts, expressed, among other remarks, that: (a) criminal proceedings 227/2004 are pending before the Third Criminal Court for Minor Crimes of Ecatepec and deal with the crime of injuries and damage to property. The investigating authority has determined that it was a car accident and no serious injuries were sustained, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office has released the accused, since the crime is described by law as a culpable or negligent crime not punishable by imprisonment. After 80 attempts to locate the accused, in order to continue the proceedings, it proved impossible to find him, so on June 11, 2007, the above-mentioned Court discharged the accused under the statute of limitations; (b) in the preliminary inquiry CUH-6T2/403/2005-03, concerning telephone threats against Mr. Rivero, it was decided not to exercise the criminal action. Hence, the beneficiary lodged an appeal for legal protection (amparo) with the Tenth District Court of Amparo for Criminal Matters. Under the Mexican Amparo Law, before delivering a judgment a constitutional hearing must be held, which hearing took place on August 7, 2008, so the relevant judgment will be handed down soon; (c) as regards inquiry CUH-6T2/402/0503, mentioned by Mr. Rivero, a request for shelving it was filed on June 20, 2006 and authorized on June 21; and (d) in relation to the investigation of the murder of Felipe de Jesús Pérez-Carmona, former bodyguard of the beneficiary, the State noted that he was murdered nine months after ceasing to work as an escort of the beneficiary and there is no link or cause connecting this fact and the provisional measures. As regards the death of Federal Agent Jorge Fuentes-Villamar, which took place while on duty as the beneficiary’s bodyguard, the Attorney General of the Federal District investigated the relationships between this murder and the threats received by the beneficiary and found no evidence from which to infer any linkage between both facts. 12. That, finally, as regards implementation measures, the State remarked that it properly protected the lives and physical integrity of the beneficiaries, inasmuch as the cellular telephones were in good working condition and escort and patrol services were being provided as agreed with the beneficiaries. It added that surveillance tasks were still being performed and that police officers had actually visited the beneficiary's domicile, as recorded in the relevant notices. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a meeting was to be held between the beneficiary and the Administrative Unit to take cognizance of the beneficiary’s observations. Likewise, it requested the beneficiary to address any observations on the patrol service to the Human Rights Promotion and Defense Unit of the Government’s Secretariat. 13. That provisional measures are of an exceptional nature and are therefore ordered in relation to the need for protection. Once ordered, said measures must be maintained only if the Court considers that the basic conditions of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons said measures are intended to protect continue to exist.5 14. That it can be inferred from the briefs submitted by the State and from the observations made by the representatives and the Inter-American Commission that in 5 Cfr. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering clause 3; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela; supra note 2, Considering clause 16; and Case of Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008, Considering clause 7.