faced by the beneficiary as a result of filing a complaint against State agents of participating in human rights violations, a proceeding that is still at the investigative phase, according to information presented by the State. Moreover, the Commission presented the following considerations regarding the request for rescission of the provisional measures: a) in an Order dated November 29, 2007, the Court found that the information provided did not indicate whether the circumstances that led to the adoption of the instant provisional measures may have ceased; b) the lack of threats cannot on its own be considered proof that the situation of risk does not continue, as it may owe itself to the enforcement of the measures, especially when the criminal proceedings in progress have not produced results; c) the instant provisional measures were not requested solely based on threats against the beneficiary, since the threats were indeed carried out, and the information available would indicate that, to date, the responsibility for that fact has not been determined; and d) the nature of the rights threatened, that is, the life and physical integrity of Ms. Guerrero Galluci, as well as her ability to continue working in the defense of human rights and the context of human rights defenders, constitute the extreme of irreparability of the consequences that the granting of the provisional measures seeks to avoid. Consequently, it asked the Tribunal to rule that the measures must be maintained. e) Considerations of the Court 20. The Court recalls in handing down measures of protection, the standard that it or its agents use for assessing the requirements is one of prima facie, the application of assumptions being on occasion necessary given a need for protection.6 This notwithstanding, the maintenance of protective measures calls for a more strict evaluation by the Court of the persistence of the situation that gave rise to those measures.7 The Tribunal recalls that the provisional measures are of an exceptional nature and that they refer to a specific temporal situation. Thus, due to their very nature, they cannot be perpetuated indefinitely.8 If a State requests the rescission or modification of the provisional measures so ordered, it must present evidence and arguments sufficient to allow the Tribunal to reach the conclusion that the risk or threat is no longer of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage. In turn, the beneficiaries’ and the Commission’s burden of proof and argument becomes greater as time goes by and new threats do not arise. Of course, the effective protection provided by the order of the Tribunal or its deterring effect may be the reason why no new threats have been committed. However, the Tribunal has considered that the lapse of a reasonable period of time without threats or intimidation, coupled with lack of an imminent risk, may lead to the rescission of provisional measures.9 6 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2004, Considering 10, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2011, Considering 15. 7 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering 7, and Matter of the Mendoza Penitentiaries. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, Considering 30. 8 Cf. Matter of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó communities. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2010, Considering 70, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2011, Considering 21. 9 Cf. Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 11, 2007, Considering 12, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler, supra footnote 8, Considering 21. 8