have been assigned to investigate the case. At first, the State indicated that the two accused officials were in detention. Later, however, it stated that only one of them was in detention: the one who is also under investigation in another criminal proceeding in which Mrs. Guerrero Galluci is the victim. In that matter, the State reported that after a joinder of cases, a recusal of the judge hearing the case and several postponements of the oral hearing, a new date has been set for the public and oral trial. It also reported on the proceedings brought before the First Instance Control Court of the Criminal Judicial District of the State of Guárico against four persons for the alleged commission of the crimes of extortion, aggravated theft of a vehicle, illegal deprivation of liberty, resistance to authority, and misuse of a firearm to the detriment of the Venezuelan State and four persons, including Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci. Regarding this case, it indicated that the criminal investigation had been ordered to be continued through an ordinary proceeding, with the measure of preventive judicial deprivation of liberty against one of accused kept in place. The remaining defendants were granted provisional release. Later, on September 19, 2008, the 14th Prosecutor's Office of the Judicial District of the State of Guárico and the 36th and 62nd National Plenipotentiary Prosecutor's Offices brought formal charges against the four persons mentioned. Additionally, the State indicated that on four different occasions, the preliminary hearing in the case has been postponed. Finally, the State reported that on a request submitted by the Office of the Public Prosecutors of January 20, 2010, on February 24, 2010, a joinder of actions was decreed for the cases in which the accused is the same person who was subjected to a measure of deprivation of liberty. The oral and public trial related to both cases was set for July 25, 2011. 15. The representatives indicated that the criminal proceedings being conducted into the attacks and threats against the beneficiary of the measures "do not show any progress toward a final and definitive conviction of the accused” with a “delay in the criminal proceeding” being evident. Additionally, as regards the criminal proceeding related to the crimes of attempted murder and conspiracy to the detriment of the beneficiary, the representatives noted that the State did not furnish sufficient evidence to prove that the accused are effectively complying with coercive measures to deprive them of liberty, and thus "that they are not free and capable of committing new violent acts against the beneficiary". Therefore, the protection granted by the State should be maintained “even under the insufficient and partial conditions present[ed] [so] far.” Regarding these same criminal proceedings, the representatives also indicated that according to the accusation and subsequent confirmation, four people were responsible for the facts, not two. Consequently, they asked the Court to order the State to investigate and, if possible, to identify all those responsible. 16. The Commission noted that the State did not present sufficient information regarding the different proceedings of the investigation into the facts related to these provisional measures. Therefore, it asked the Court to order the State to forward detailed and updated information on all the criminal proceedings. On several occasions, it also reiterated that according to the information provided, the criminal proceedings have not shown substantial progress. It recalled that “an effective and thorough investigation is an important measure for preventing the repetition of violent acts". d) Grounds related to the request for rescission of these provisional measures 17. The State asked the Tribunal to rescind the provisional measures ordered to the benefit of Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci in 2006 (supra Having Seen 1) because currently, neither the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency nor the need to avoid irreparable damage have been satisfied pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention and in conjunction with Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. In this respect, 6