7 presented which threaten her security. Therefore, the document provided by the representatives, which is the object of a criminal investigation by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Nation (FGN), does not demonstrate that Ms. Parra is in real, actual, and imminent danger. 20. In regards to the allegations of the representatives at the public hearing about the supposed recent developments in the investigation of the forced disappearance of Isidro Caballero Delgado and Maria del Carmen Santana (infra Considering 22), the State proposed to perform a new study of the level of risk to Ms. Parra, which will be carried out together with the representatives. 21. The representatives indicated some problems with the implementation of the protection scheme of Ms. Parra and confirmed that it “has always been in the charge of […] DAS, by request and insistence of the [beneficiary].” They manifested that if the provisional measures are rescinded, since the performed internal reports indicate an ordinary level of risk, the beneficiary would not be able to be included in the internal protection programs. Similarly, they affirmed that the risk to Ms. Parra persists as long as she continues demanding the authorities investigate the forced disappearance of Isidro Caballero Delgado and Maria del Carmen Santana. They reiterated the possible flaws of the study of the level of risk and degree of threat of April 24, 2009, signaling that the beneficiary referred to the background of the present case and its union activities in the interview, but said study did not present any analysis or foundation in order to conclude that her level of risk derived from her relation to a union. 22. On the other hand, the representatives indicated that: a) “recently [the beneficiary] has not been followed, threatened, or received any calls;” b) the last intimidating fact against her occurred more than five years ago and this was “the perception that her communications were intercepted,” and c) “before said occurrence, there was a very concrete fact of a threat and risk, not only to her, but also to her son, and this was in December 1998, when […] a member of the Police followed them, their vehicle, and the movements she made.” In the opinion of the representatives, the present lack of threats and harassments is due to the lack of motivation in the criminal investigation of the case since 2003. Nevertheless, the situation of risk for Ms. Parra was seriously reactivated in 2009, given that the Prosecutor’s Office in charge of said procedure resolved to act in an organized form with the purpose of moving forward with the investigation, carrying out some diligences such as measures to locate the military and police that could offer testimony about the facts and the new testimony given by the beneficiary on November 11, 2009. Furthermore, the Prosecutor’s Office has tried to implement a revision process in order to remove the legal obstacles that impede the criminal proceedings against members of the Army that were identified as participants of the forced disappearance. In this way, the conduct of the referenced body revealed “a great number of activities that objectively reflect the interest and the objective decision, evidently founded and not hypothetical, of a motivation to carry out the investigation.” Said advances must be accompanied with due protection to those that participate in the procedures, given that, as has been indicated by the Prosecutor’s Office in its report of March 5, 2008, among witnesses there is a persistent fear of giving testimonies. 23. Likewise, the representatives expressed their worry regarding the alleged illegal activities of the DAS intelligence, alleging that the beneficiary “was monitored