and iii) when necessary to avoid “irreparable damage to people”. These three conditions coexist and must be present in every situation where the intervention of the Tribunal is requested. By the same token, the conditions above mentioned must continue to exist in order for the Court to maintain the protection so ordered. If one of them is no longer in force, it falls upon the Tribunal to assess the relevance of continuing with the so-ordered protection.3 5. Given that five years have elapsed since the adoption of the provisional measures in favor of the beneficiary, and in view of the fact that Venezuela has requested, on two occasions, the rescission of the measures (supra Having Seen clause 2), the Court deems it appropriate to assess the information presented from the last order issued by the Tribunal, dated November 2007 (Having Seen 1). 6. In this respect, it is convenient to recall that based on its competence, the Court cannot, in a provisional measure, consider the merits of any arguments pertaining to issues other than those which relate strictly to the extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity to avoid irreparable damage to persons. It is in this manner that, in deciding whether to keep the provisional measures in force, the Tribunal must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that led to their adoption persists, or whether new circumstances, also extremely grave and urgent, warrant keeping them in force. All other issues may be brought to the Court’s attention solely through the procedure for contentious cases.4 7. To that end, the Tribunal shall first address the measures of protection implemented by the State and the participation of the beneficiary, the possible acts of harassment reported, and the investigations conducted into the facts that gave rise to these provisional measures. It will then proceed to address the arguments related to the rescission of the present provisional measures and analyze whether in the instant case, the conditions mentioned above still exist. a) Information on the measures participation of the beneficiary of protection implemented and the 8. The State reported that the 49th Plenipotentiary Prosecutor’s Office has been assigned to guarantee effective compliance with the protective measure ordered to the benefit of Maria del Rosario Guerrero Gallucci on August 17, 2007, by the 13th First Instance Control Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. The measures consist of the permanent police patrolling, protection and surveillance by officials working for the Dirección General de los Servicios de Inteligencia y Prevención (Intelligence and Prevention Services Bureau) (hereinafter “DISIP”), which would be provided within the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. According to the State, a series of agreements have been reached with the beneficiary that include notifying the Tribunal 48 hours in advance of any exit from the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, the beneficiary’s avoiding of giving statements to the media, and maintaining a cordial and respectful relationship with the officers assigned to the protection. In addition, it forwarded copies of the “Registry and Supervision of Custody Service" sheets filled out initially by the officials 3 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, Considering 14, and Matter of the Unidad de Internación Socioeducativa, supra footnote 1, Considering 5. 4 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 29, 1998, Considering 6, and Matter of the Unidad de Internación Socioeducativa, supra footnote 1, Considering 6. 3