the alleged conduct of the personnel assigned to security tasks, this is a matter that does not derive directly from the regulation of the mechanism in question, as the representation of the beneficiaries has indicated. 11 Based on all the above, the observations of the representation of the beneficiaries, alone, are insufficient to alter the fact that the State has an institutionalized mechanism that permits the beneficiaries to be provided with protection. B. Regarding Mr. Meléndez Quijano and the members of his family 11. On September 18, 2012, the State “affirm[ed] the complete absence of [an] ‘imminent risk’” 12 for the beneficiaries. In this regard, it recalled, first, that: The situation of threats to the life of Mr. Meléndez Quijano and his family […] was related to the different proceedings filed before the military jurisdiction against him and to various actions that [he] filed before the ordinary jurisdiction against the military authorities, which also involved the impossibility that [he] could benefit, at a certain moment, from a military promotion. Regarding this situation, the State argued that this: Was resolved when the administrative proceedings initiated against Mr. Meléndez Quijano on September 20, 2005, before the Army’s Honor Tribunal for alleged facts injurious to military honor, ended on March 26, 2010, on the recommendation of that court, ordering the filing of the proceedings based on a decision of the prosecution. Also, Mr. Meléndez Quijano was promoted from Major to Lieutenant Colonel […] as of […] January 1, 2005, and his promotion to Colonel was ordered by a decision […] of […] December 31, 2009, with recognition of seniority and length of service as of […] January 1, 2009. Second, the State indicated that “during 2011 and [up until September 18,] 2012, […] it had not recorded relevant situations that reveal any level of real risk or danger for the beneficiaries of the measures.” 13 On May 20, 2013, the State “reiterate[d] that, since 2010, […] no real and specific acts that threaten the safety of any of the beneficiaries have been recorded”. 12. The State also included an assessment of some of the incidents referred to by the representation of the beneficiaries (infra considering paragraph 15). Thus, in its observations of October 19, 2010, the State explained that Mr. Meléndez Quijano’s arrest on May 10, 2010, was due, according to a police report, to the fact that he did not want to show his weapon and “insulted and acted with disrespect” towards the police agents, “even the Special Law for the Protection of Victims and Witnesses is applicable and, under articles 1 and 2 of this Law, measures of protection will be provided to victims, witnesses and any other person who is in a situation of danger as a result of his or her intervention in the investigation of an offense or in judicial proceedings, or owing to a family relationship with a person intervening in the latter. The Prosecutor General has opened an investigation into the cases denounced (reference 276-UADJ-2005 and 90-UDAJ-05); consequently, this case complies formally with the requirements for the application of measures of protection established by the law.” 11 In his brief of October 18, 2012, immediately after indicated the conduct referred to above of the said personnel (supra footnote 6), the representation of the beneficiaries indicated, in relation to “th[at] situation,” that “it was due to the fact that the actual Head of the Victims and Witnesses Division […] fails to select appropriate personnel, or to take the family’s opinion into account.” 12 El Salvador described the concept of “imminent risk,” recalling decisions of the Court in which, according to the State, the Court had affirmed that “the passage of a reasonable period of time without threats and acts of intimidation, added to the absence of an imminent risk, could result in the lifting of the provisional measures.” 13 In this regard, it indicated that “in order to assess the level of risk or danger […], during a meeting between the beneficiaries of the measure and officials of the institutions responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the measures held on […] March 6, [2012,] Mr. Meléndez Quijano was asked about specific threatening situations or risks to his life, and he undertook to submit information in writing; however, he did not do this.” 7