8 Court will be responsible for assessing the adequacy of maintaining the ordained protection. 20. That by delivering the protective measures the Court or whoever presides it does not require, in principle, evidence of the facts, which prima facie seem to comply with the requirements of Article 63 of the Convention. On the contrary, the need to maintain the protective measures calls for an evaluation by the Court regarding the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage that gave rise to those measures,7 based on evidence. 21. That in April 2009 the Court was informed of alleged acts of threats and intimidations against Ms. Pérez Torres. Consequently, the President assessed prima facie (supra Considering 20) the existence of a situation with characteristics of extreme gravity and urgency that justified the adoption of urgent protective measures to avoid irreparable damage to her and to her family (supra Having Seen 1). 22. That the Court takes notice that in the instant matter the State has manifested its commitment to maintaining the protective measures (supra Considering 15). 23. That the Court, as it has done previously,8 takes into account the agreement between the parties and decides to ratify the order of the President in the Order of April 24, 2009 (supra Having Seen 1), in the sense that Mexico must maintain protective measures in favor of Ms. Rosa Isela Pérez Torres and her family. 24. That taking into consideration the will demonstrated by the State (supra Considering 15 and 16.d), the Court deems appropriate to request that, within the term established in the operative section of the instant Order, the State submit a report in which it: a) identifies and establishes differences in degree of the risk on Ms. Rosa Isela Pérez Torres and her family, identified by her; b) carefully assess each individual situation, the existence, characteristics, and origin or source of the risk, and c) timely define the specific, adequate, and sufficient measures and means of protection to prevent the risk, if existent, from materializing. To that purpose, the beneficiary and her family must fully collaborate with the State and facilitate the making of this report. 25. That in view of what the representatives expressed regarding the risk assessment which the State offered to perform (supra Considering 16.d), specifically that it would be performed by a Unit of the Office of the Attorney for Justice which had employees that “had been hostile” to Ms. Perez Torres’ work (supra Considering 18), the Court considers that the State must include other institutions in the creation of the report requested in the previous paragraph, so that the report can be as objective as possible. Likewise, it reiterates to the representatives that the beneficiary and her family’s collaboration in the making of this report will be 7 Cf. Matter of Pueblo Indígena Kankuamo, supra note 6, Considering seven, and Case of Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, Considering 32. 8 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of May 3, 2008, considering seventeen.