3 11. The Commission’s December 17, 1999 observations on the State’s thirtysecond report, wherein it forwarded to the Court the comments made by the beneficiaries of the present provisional measures, to the following effect: [...] the interested [parties] were not notified of the decision to set the case [No. 101197] aside and had expressed their dissatisfaction with the inferior investigation conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which ‘did not have the capacity to put together a serious investigation aimed at indicting the material and intellectual authors on the crimes reported.’ They have underscored the fact that this decision was in violation of the orders of the Inter-American Court, since the latter had instructed the Guatemalan State to conduct an investigation and the State had instead decided to set it aside. It was also reported that because she was constantly working in defense of human rights and had reported the irregularities in the Carpio case, Karen Fischer de Carpio had fears for her own safety. 12. The State’s thirty-third report, dated January 4, 2000, whereby it reported that it was continuing to provide protection to Karen Fischer de Carpio and Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio and forwarded to the Court the very same documents it had supplied in the past (supra 6) in connection with case No. 1011-97; and the Commission’s February 29, 2000 observations on that report, wherein it pointed out that the beneficiaries of the provisional measures had received “anonymous, threatening” phone calls and that the documents supplied by the State did not indicate “what measures or proceedings were ordered and/or (sic) carried out to identify a suspect or how the investigation was carried out.” 13. The State’s March 6, 2000 note enclosing its thirty-fourth report, wherein it advised that security was being provided to the beneficiaries of the provisional measures and that the “Criminal Investigation Service has again been given orders to continue the investigation into the threats and harassment that [the beneficiaries] claim to have received.” In its April 28, 2000 observations on that report, the Commission underscored the fact that only one agent was protecting Mrs. Fischer and that no detailed information explaining the decision to set aside case No. 101197 had been forthcoming. 14. The State’s thirty-fifth report, dated June 1, 2000, wherein it pointed out that the two beneficiaries were being guarded by two agents; however, it made no mention of case No. 1011-97. In its July 21, 2000 observations on this report, the Commission stated that the State had misrepresented the security being provided to the two persons. It pointed out, for example, that no one was policing the perimeter of Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio’s residence since she had moved the year before. It also noted that Karen Fischer de Carpio continued to be the target of telephone intimidation tactics, because of her association with the Carpio Nicolle case. The Commission said again that it was disturbed by the fact that detailed information on case No. 1011-97 was not being provided. 15. The State’s thirty-sixth report, dated September 20, 2000, wherein it repeated the information already provided concerning the security services for the two beneficiaries (supra 13). The State added that the Presidential Coordinating Committee on the Executive’s Human Rights Policy (hereinafter “COPREDEH”) had conferred with the Director General of the National Police about the importance of the State’s reports to the Inter-American Court and about detailing another security agent to Mrs. Fischer. In its November 7, 2000 observations, the Commission