4 Commission nor the representatives remitted information regarding the location and the need for protection of these persons, reasons for which, inter alia, the President of the Court resolved to call a private hearing (Supra Having Seen 6). 9. That during the private hearing, the State declared, inter alia, that: a) b) 10. it was unable to offer information regarding the location of the beneficiaries, the situation of risk of the beneficiaries nor, as a consequence, of the measures adopted. The State signaled therefore that it will utilize the hearing to receive such information and that it was “willing to take the measures necessary if the […] Court so considered [it];” and in relation to the beneficiaries that reside outside of its territory, “it has no ability to apply these measures in the territory of another State;” even though the State reiterated its willingness to arrive at some agreement to implement the measures if these persons decided to return to Colombia. That during the private hearing the representatives stated, inter alia, that: a) b) c) d) “both Wilson and his family as well as Ricardo and his family in this moment do not live in Colombia, meaning, they were forced to leave Colombia for reasons of security, they have not decided to abandon their country, and they are persons that want some day to return to live or at least to spend important time in Colombia. [Therefore] […] it is very important that these measures remain in effect, as established by the Court in its Order of November 2007;” in relation to “the three family members that still are in Colombia […] there is a particular sensitivity and distrust of the family toward the State, given the pattern and persecution to which the family was subjected;” “recently the mother of Wilson Gutiérrez, Mrs. María Elena Soler de Gutiérrez had […] a complicated situation of security, of which the police and the Mayor of Bogota and of Suba were informed, but without [obtaining] answers,” and in “a short time”they will coordinate “a meeting [with the State, where] the representatives […] and in particular the Group [of lawyers Jose Alvear Restrepo] commit to assure the attendance of the family members […] so that [they can] make concrete the measures that may be necessary […].” 11. That the Commission supported the arguments of the representatives and highlighted that “the State is not questioning if there exists a situation of risk,” for which it considers that “it will be pertinent that the Tribunal gave the opportunity to the representatives to comply with the offering […] to give information about the beneficiaries of the provisional measures that are living in Colombia.” The Commission considered, at the same time, that “given that there is an intention already expressed by the beneficiaries that are outside of the country to eventually return to Colombia, […] it is pertinent, in the terms that the Court itself has determined, to maintain these measures for when they return.” 12. That in its report presented prior to the holding of the hearing, the State expressed, inter alia, that: