6 representatives expressed that the above-mentioned attorney stated that he thought that the theft was strange, as those who broke in took away documents, a computer and memory devices. The Court observes that there were no specific arguments or elements which may link the theft to the intervention of the attorney of the family Ochoa y Plácido in the case of Digna Ochoa y Plácido. That bond does not expressly arise from the attorney statements gathered by the representatives either; in fact, according to what was mentioned at the public hearing, said attorney allegedly made reference the elements stolen from his office and his suspicion on the matter, but it was not mentioned that he related that event to the criminal investigation of the death of Digna Ochoa. 10. That at the public hearing, the State expressed that it becomes evident that after more than six years from the implementation of the provisional measures, the life or the integrity of the beneficiaries of said measures have not been threatened, nor have there been any facts which may imply that their physical integrity is at risk. 11. That, on the other hand, the State has fulfilled its duty to periodically inform the Court on the steps it has taken to implement the measures. 12. That, notwithstanding some difficulties in their implementation, the Court observes that for more than six years the State has adopted different measures to protect Pilar Noriega-García, Bárbara Zamora-López and the members of family Ochoa y Plácido, such as personal bodyguards, the set up of CCTV, escorts at working places, emergency telephones and cellular telephone services. 13. That provisional measures are exceptional in nature, they are ordered on the basis of the needs for protection and, once ordered must be maintained, provided the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency subsist, as well as for the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the people protected by them.2 14. That a reasonable time has gone by without the beneficiaries having expressed to have been the target of threats or intimidations. The Court further considers, on the one hand, that the arguments of the representatives in the sense that the criminal investigations must continue or the alleged lack of information thereof, do not constitute circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency which deserve the maintenance of the present provisional measures.3 On the other hand, the Court observes that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings 2 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Decision of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering paragraph No. 3; Matter of Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitenciary Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Decision of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2007, Considering Paragraph No. 4; and Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 2007, Considering Paragraph No. 7. Cf. Matter of Gallardo-Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 11, 2007, Considering Paragraph No. 11, and Case of the Constitutional Court, Provisional Measures regarding Peru; supra note 2, Considering Paragraph No. 4. 3