who has justified this situation by the argument that this is common practice in his working environment.” The agents assigned have advised the Executive Technical Unit that they have been subjected to “humiliating” treatment by Colonel Meléndez and that they are exposed to significant danger in addition to the risk inherent in their work, because he has given them orders that are unrelated to their work or to his family, and e) It provides protection to the beneficiaries based on a domestic protection mechanism regulated by the “Special Law for the Protection of Victims and Witnesses.” 4 5. On June 30 and November 12, 2010, April 28 and November 21, 2011, April 26, July 26, August 23 and October 18, 2012, and June 19 , 2013, the representation of the beneficiaries indicated that: a) The safety measures implemented by the State were not provided diligently and effectively. The measures were provided to Mr. Meléndez, as of November 30, 2009, and to the other beneficiaries as of September 11, 2010. The State had offered and provided for the whole family ten protection agents (six men and four women), who worked shifts of two groups of five agents. Nevertheless, Mr. Meléndez, has stated repeatedly that the number of agents provided is insufficient. He has also asserted that the State has not established a dialogue with the beneficiaries, and has not allowed the family to take part in the selection of the security agents or consulted them about the changes, and this is of concern to him because his family is unprotected. He also alleged a lack of coordination enabling the protection agents to enter public institutions. The representation added that while Mr. Meléndez was under house arrest in a military unit, he did not have protection from the Victims and Witnesses Protection Program, although his safety was ensured under the supervision of the authorities who verified his custody; b) Mr. Meléndez Quijano’s mother and sister have not had a protection agent assigned to them since June 2012, and on July 24, 2012, the head of the Executive Technical Unit and the head of the Protection Division ordered the withdrawal of the vehicles and agents assigned to the Colonel; c) The two assigned vehicles had problems, and even though the State affirmed that mechanical maintenance and check-ups were provided, their condition has caused financial inconveniences and loss of time, so that they were not appropriate for providing effective protection to the family, who asked that the vehicles be changed. The representation indicated that the State had replaced the two vehicles. Regarding the State’s undertaking to remove the logos of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security from the assigned vehicles, and the offer of four radios for the security personnel, the State had not removed the logos from the vehicles and had not provided the radios; d) There had been anomalies in the way the agents treated the family. Several letters had been sent to the Executive Technical Unit to advise them of these anomalies and of a lack of respect shown by the agents assigned to the beneficiaries. Regarding the treatment of the protection agents by Colonel Meléndez and his family, according to information provided by the State, according to the minutes of a meeting of April 12, 2012, the Colonel stated that “if, at any time, he has said anything that could be misinterpreted by someone, he undertakes to be careful 4 The State attached to its communication of September 18, 2012, a copy of the text of the said law. 4