4 being offered by the elements of said dependency, but manifested their consent so that it can be provisionally given in the manner offered by the State. In this respect, they indicated that they had supported a meeting with the representatives of the National Civil Police and the advisor of the Director, in which it was established a proposal in order to incorporate personnel that were not police with the trust of Mr. and Mrs. García Prieto, and training and hiring by the National Civil Police. Regarding Ms. Matilde Guadalupe Hernández de Espinoza, they signaled that “she did not accept the measures that had been adopted since the beginning,” and that she is currently an official of the State and has separated from the Institute of Human Rights of the Central American University “José Simeón Cañas” (hereinafter “IDHUCA”) and consequently, of the present case. Also, the representatives manifested that they passed along the apologies of the State and they will make them extensive to the García Prieto family. 8. That the Commission manifested that it valuated the manifestations of good will made by the State, as well as the rapprochement between the parties. Also, it reiterated that it was reasonable and necessary to maintain the provisional measures in virtue of the risk that persists due to the relation that existed between the investigation and the threats. 9. That the Tribunal finds it timely to reiterate that provisional measures have an exceptional character, and are ordered having regard to the basic need of protection and, once ordered, must be maintained as long as the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by them subsist.4 10. That due to the information and observations presented by the parties regarding the actual state of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency, the Tribunal considers it pertinent to maintain in effect the provisional measures in favor of Gloria Giralt de García Prieto, José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann, María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, José Benjamín Cuéllar Martínez and Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera. 11. That the Court observes that in the manifestations made by the parties, it is seen that a rapprochements has been carried out as well as a series of proposals in relation to the form of the provisional measures that must be implemented by the State in favor of Ms. Gloria Giralt de García Prieto and Mr. José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann. In this sense, the Court finds it pertinent that the State inform in a periodic, specific, and detailed manner regarding the implementation of the measures. Regarding the investigation of the facts that motivated the adoption of the provisional measures. 12. That the State provided that it carried out “the investigation of eight telephone numbers that appeared related with the threats […] without having 4 Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, considering third; Case of Integrantes del Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial (ECAP). Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, considering eighteenth; and Case of Helen Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of November 16, 2009, considering fourteenth.