7 19. That as regards the attack suffered by Mr. Chang Apuy, the State indicated in its report of August 14, 2008 that since the protection team was agreed on between the Myrna Chang Foundation and the Provincial Government Ministry, COPREDEH “could not answer why Mr. Ronald Chang Apuy did not have security at the time of the attack against his life on July 29, 2008.” Later on, in a brief of January 7, 2009, the State informed about the progress in the investigation regarding the attack to Mr. Chang Apuy. To that end, the State informed that “on the basis of the investigation (...) the homicide attack and theft suffered [by him] on July 29, 2008, possibly respond to petty crime not related to the Myrna Mack Chang case. However, the State continues paying attention to the security of Mrs. Helen Mack, her family and the staff of the [Myrna Mack Foundation]”. The State informed that the motive of the crime occurred after Mr. Chang Apuy withdrew cash from a bank; he was then approached by three armed individuals who, apart from shooting at him, took his belongings away. The investigation has identified two individuals who form part of a criminal gang operating in that area of the capital city; an action was brought against them for attempted homicide and first degree theft. Preventive detention was decided for one of them and capture of the second individual is still pending. 20. In a brief of September 12, 2008, the representatives expressed that the State had not indicated the present situation and the results of the investigation carried out about this attack in its report to the Court; this was evidence of the lack of knowledge about the progress of the investigation by COPREDEH. Later on, in a brief of January 12, 2009, the representatives pointed out that although the State informed that the Attorney General’s office had only identified two out of the three suspects in its report of January 7, 2009, the State did not express anything about the investigation lines or the actions taken by the Attorney General’s office to determine any alleged responsibility. The representatives considered it was necessary to know the results of the investigation since the Mack Chang family was afraid of retaliation, if this was a case of petty crime and there were suspects whose capture was pending. To that end, the representatives requested that the State provide information about the investigation as well as protection for Mr. Chang Apuy and the Mack Chang family. 21. That the Court considers that the representatives and the Commission must provide specific and updated information about the alleged facts against Ronald Chang Apuy on July 29, 2008, and about his present situation and the proceedings carried out about these facts; and that the State should provide a detailed report on the proceedings carried out about this matter and the observations it may deem pertinent about the observations made by the representatives and the Commission. * * * Regarding Luis Roberto Romero Rivera, Jorge Guillermo Lemus Alvarado and his relatives 22. That regarding Mr. Luis Roberto Romero Rivera, the representatives initially informed that it had not been possible to locate him so the information about his situation was still pending. The Commission pointed out that it did not have any information to give an opinion about this matter. Later on, in a brief of July 15, 2008, the representatives informed that the beneficiary considered that the measures have been complied with satisfactorily and that at present the beneficiary is physically protected by security agents from the Personalities Protection Division (“DPP”), in “8 x