10. Regarding the sworn statement of Carolina Orismar Alzul García, the State noted that it had not been authenticated and argued that “the alleged ignorance […] of the location or notifications of the Victims’ Assistance Unit, is […] at odds with the fact that all members of the Barrios Family Group have a representative before the Court” where the hearings on the measures of protection take place. The State also emphasized that during the interview, Carolina Orismar Alzul García was asked if she felt any sense of risk living in Guanayen, whereupon she answered that “things have happened, but it is not so” and, after asking her whether she “considered it necessary to maintain the measures of protection by officers attached to the National Bolivarian Guard [,] the aforementioned citizen renounced such measures.” 11. In this regard, the Commission noted that “the sworn statement by Orismar Carolina Alzul […] would call into question the information mentioned by the respective judicial authority” and “would also raise serious doubts about the interviews with the partners of Narciso and Benito Barrios”. As to the beneficiaries for whom the State requested the lifting of measures, the Commission stated that “the nature of domestic hearings and decisions regarding measures of protection [should] not be confused with the application of an international order […] to maintain provisional measures in favor of all the persons who remain as beneficiaries.” The Commission emphasized that the dialogue established by the State with the beneficiaries “cannot replace the Court’s protection orders.” Finally, the Commission stressed that “provisional measures are in force in favor of all the beneficiaries and that the domestic ruling is not effective for compliance with the State’s international obligations.” 12. As to the State’s request to lift the measures, in the first place, the Court points out that Dalila Ortuño is not a beneficiary of the provisional measures ordered in this case (supra Considering para. 5). Therefore it is not appropriate for this Court to rule on State’s request to lift the measures regarding this person or on her presumed situation of risk, even though she may be a beneficiary of domestic protection measures. 13. Furthermore, regarding the beneficiaries Yelitza Lugo Pelaes and Orismar Carolina Alzul, the Court takes cognizance of the interview transcripts provided by the State, according to which both beneficiaries had expressly renounced the domestic measures of protection ordered in their favor, considering that it was not necessary to continue with the protection provided by police officers. However, it points out that, according to information provided by the representatives of both beneficiaries before this Court, the transcripts of the interviews do not reflect their true wishes. This Court takes note of the observations presented by the representatives, according to which the beneficiaries did not know the purpose of said interview, and were not fully informed about the measures that they were allegedly renouncing. In this regard, it highlights the sworn statement made by Mrs. Orismar Carolina Alzul and provided by the representatives, where the aforementioned beneficiary “refute [d] the contents of the transcripts presented by the Attorney General’s Office at the hearing […] held on March 7, 2012” and explained that she had told the official of the Victims’ Assistance Unit that she “did not feel satisfied with the protective measures” because the “national guards had gone to [her] mother’s house only twice.” Furthermore, in her statement Mrs. Alzul explained that the official who allegedly told her that she was there on behalf of her representatives, “drew up a record in her own handwriting, [and] asked [her] […] to sign it, [which she did], believing in the honesty of the official” (supra Considering para. 9). 14. As to the State’s objection regarding the lack of authentication of this statement, the Court recalls that, within the framework of contentious cases, it has stated that the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic judicial proceedings, and that the incorporation of certain elements into the body of evidence must be made paying particular 5