b) given the increase in the severity and intensity of the attacks, under the framework of the monitoring of its precautionary measures "it required the State to, in a particular way, 'strengthen the measures of protection [...] [i] specifically, in favor of Danilo Rueda, Director of the Organization.’” It noted that, despite these requests, "the State continued without undertaking measures of protection that take into account the particular circumstances of the work carried out by Mr. Danilo Rueda.” In this context, “the serious of events took place that put him in a situation of extreme risk”; c) the measures adopted in the framework of the precautionary measures “have not provided effective results given the level of risk that the beneficiary faces,” who requires monitoring that goes beyond the monitoring carried out by the Inter-American Commission to members of the CIJP, “to which individualized and differentiated measures of protection are necessary [...]"; d) noted the importance of the measures that were agreed upon at the meeting held on May 13, 2014, at the Foreign Ministry, however, it noted that they should be “adopted as soon as possible, in consultation with [Mr. Danilo Rueda] and that ongoing monitoring of their effectiveness should be a constant practice.” Moreover, it noted its appreciation of “the steps taken by the State in the implementation of the urgent measures ordered by the Acting President of the Court.” However, it noted that "the offer of individualized protection was heard for the first time before the granting of urgent measures [...]”; e) the fact that the State would be taking the initial steps to comply with the urgent measures does not imply that the provisional measures are not necessary. “[... T]he State's proposal to grant individualized protection under the framework of precautionary measures [...] lacks merit given the Court’s reiterated criteria of taking into account the ineffectiveness of the precautionary measures,” and f) to date, there exist only measures that have been programmed but not yet implemented. According to the Commission, given the high level of risk faced by Mr. Danilo Rueda, the most effective mechanism to achieve a constant monitoring is to implement provisional measures. Thus, it asked the plenary of the Court to ratify the urgent measures granted by the Acting President. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on June 21, 1985. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that “[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” This provision is in turn governed by Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and is binding on the States since the basic 13