12. The Court finds it opportune to reiterate that provisional measures are exceptional in nature; they are ordered based on the need for protection and, once ordered, must be maintained provided the Court considers that the basic requirements persist of extreme gravity and urgency, and the prevention of irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by them.6 13. Based on the above, the Court considers that the information provided by the Commission, the representatives and the State reveals that the beneficiaries of these provisional measures continue in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, because their life and personal integrity are threatened and at grave risk. Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to continue to protect the said persons by means of provisional measures. 14. Owing to the situation of risk of the beneficiaries of these measures, the Court assesses positively the State’s attitude of adopting, among other provisions, the pertinent measures to correct the shortcomings in the implementation of the provisional measures, by holding working meetings, offering safety infrastructure, and facilitating direct lines of communication with the police in order to provide the beneficiaries with adequate safety measures (supra fifth considering paragraph). 15. Consequently, the State must continue taking the pertinent measures to ensure that the provisional measures required in this Order are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives, so that the said measures are provided diligently and effectively, assessing the specific risk of each beneficiary in order to determine the precise means of protection. The participation of the State and the beneficiaries or their representatives is essential in order to coordinate the implementation of the provisional measures in this matter adequately. 16. Therefore, the State must submit precise detailed information on the provisional measures implemented in favor of each beneficiary so that the Court may assess them. Specifically, the State must submit: (a) the list of agreements reached with the beneficiaries or their representatives; (b) the timetable for implementation of the agreements; (c) the protection measures adopted, and (d) the measures to monitor the said implementation. 17. For its part, the Court finds it necessary that the representatives present their observations on the State’s report within the time frame established in the operative paragraphs of this Order, which should include an updated assessment of the situation of risk of the beneficiaries of these measures. 18. Regarding the domestic investigations, the Court reiterates that the State has the special obligation to guarantee the rights of persons in a situation of risk, and must promote the investigations required to clarify the facts, followed by the legal consequences established in the pertinent law.7 However, the analysis of the effectiveness of these                                                              6 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional measures with regard to Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2011, third considering paragraph, and Case of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra note 5, twentieth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Honduras. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 15, 1988, Considering three, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic, supra note 1, forty-second considering paragraph. 6