turn, the burden of proof and argument of the beneficiaries and of the Inter-American Commission will increase as time goes by without any new threats. Evidently, the fact that no new threats occur may be due precisely to the effectiveness of the protection provided or to the deterrent effect of the Court’s Order. Nevertheless, the Court has considered that the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats or intimidation, added to the absence of an imminent risk, may lead to the lifting of the provisional measures.10 25. The Court must also take into account that, according to the Preamble of the American Convention, the international protection in the form of a convention “reinforce[s] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States". Therefore, if it is proved that the State in question has developed effective protection mechanisms or measures for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Court could decide to lift the provisional measures, delegating the protection obligation to the entity that bears the main responsibility: namely, the State.11 If the Court lifts the provisional measures for this reason, under its obligation to ensure human rights, the State would have to maintain the protective measures it has adopted and that the Court found effective for as long as the circumstances warranted.12 26. From the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that, despite the measures ordered since the adoption of the Order of July 6, 2009, there have been reports of some incidents of intimidation, threats and acts of violence against some of the beneficiaries. Consequently, the Court reiterates that the State must provide the beneficiaries with the protection necessary to ensure their personal integrity, in accordance with the requirements under these provisional measures and as agreed with the beneficiaries. The State has advised that it has opened preliminary inquiries into some of the complaints made at the domestic level; thus, proceedings have been opened to investigate them. 27. Regarding the Carpio Fischer family, several incidents occurred in 2004, 2009 and 2010 against Karen Fischer and her security agents. These incidents are being investigated although, to date, they have not been elucidated. In addition, this Court notes that, regarding Daniela and Rodrigo Carpio Fischer, no incident has been reported since this Court ordered that they become beneficiaries of these provisional measures in the Order of the Court of July 8, 2004. Regarding the last incident reported by Mrs. Fischer, according to whom some officials had asked for her papers and had indicated that they would take her to the “bodeguita,” the Court does not have sufficient evidence to consider that this was a threat associated with a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. 28. With regard to Abraham Mendez, his wife and children, the Court observes that acts of intimidation were recorded in 2004 and 2011. Consequently, twice, in August and September 2012, Mr. Méndez was asked to provide more details as to whether maintaining the provisional measures ordered in his favor was justified. When responding to this request, Mr. Méndez indicated that threats and acts of intimidation had occurred in 2010, 10 Cf. Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 11, 2007, eleventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al., Provisional measures with regard to Peru, twentieth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 20, 20073 thirteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al., Provisional measures with regard to Peru, twenty-first considering paragraph. 12 Cf. Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional measures with regard to Peru, twenty-first considering paragraph. 10