7 d) that with regards to the possibility that the State publish objective information (supra Considering 13), the State “takes cognizance of this […] with the goal of analyzing an alternative solution to this request [and a]dditionally offers a risk evaluation on the beneficiary’ specific situation, to be performed by the Office of the Attorney for Justice of the State of Chihuahua, once the complaint is filed;” e) that “[t]he State […] and the representatives […] in the event of a risk situation will meet to establish the measures for a potential move in the [Mexican] interior,” and f) that “[t]he State […] offers the representatives of the beneficiary a cell phone with credit, to guarantee the life and security of the beneficiaries of the measures.” 17. That the representatives indicated that in the aforementioned meeting “it was not possible to reach definite agreements on the implementation of [the] proposals [which they presented], because they did not match the measures that the State was prepared to offer,” which mainly consisted in “providing […] public security officers […], and a cell phone for emergency calls to regular security numbers.” Regarding the first point, the representatives reiterated that “due to the conditions of the case and the local situation, it is not possible to consider personal security belonging to the public safety bodies” and on the second point they indicated that these are “[o]ffers that are present but do not respond to the urgent needs, and may be implemented without delay to effectively guarantee that there will not be any irreparable damages to her life and integrity.” 18. That additionally, with regards to the specific proposals presented by the representatives during the meeting, they indicated that the State’s response “was the request […] to file the complaint before the national system for the delivery of justice,” and that it was also agreed that the representatives “would look for private security options and a new meeting would be held.” Regarding the State’s proposal to obtain “an expert’s report on the risk of [Ms. Pérez Torres] in order to determine the risk, from its point of view, in an objective manner,” the representatives indicated that this assessment would be performed by the Victims Attention Unit of the Office of the Attorney for Justice of the State of Chihuahua, and that in this Unit “there are employees in different positions whom journalist Pérez Torres interviewed during her journalism work […] and that they had been hostile to her work since that moment.” * * * 19. That Article 63(2) of the Convention demands that for the Court to be able to establish provisional measures three conditions must be met: i) “extreme gravity”; ii) “urgency,” and iii) the goal of “preventing irreparable damages to persons” (supra Considering ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). These three conditions are coexisting and must be present in all situations in which Court intervention is requested. Likewise, the three conditions described must persist for the Court to maintain the ordained protection. If one of them is no longer valid, the