risk to their life as a result of the threats and acts of violence committed against them and their families, the State’s obligation of diligence to prevent the violation of their rights became more specific and more precise with regard to Luis Alberto Barrios, Oscar José Barrios, Wilmer José Flores Barrios, Néstor Caudi Barrios and Juan José Barrios. Since this obligation of means is more rigorous, it required the organs of the State to take prompt and immediate action ordering the opportune and necessary measures to determine those responsible for the threats and the crimes that had occurred in this context.151 125. The Court recalls that, regarding the protection of the members of the Barrios family, the State had alleged the beneficiaries’ lack of collaboration, indicating, inter alia, “their reluctance […] to sign the records [of visits].” Furthermore, it had noted that it “had difficulty complying with the measures ordered by the Court because the beneficiaries had not provided all their addresses and, in addition, they lived in two different states, Miranda and Aragua,” and they had refused police protection by agents from a specific police station. 126. In this regard, the Court observes that the evidence provided indicates that a local court ordered the protection of Juan José Barrios, among others, on March 30 and May 13, 2004, and repeated it on December 3 that year (supra para. 94). In the last decision, it ordered the creation of a permanent team to protect the beneficiaries of the measures of protection. Regarding this decision, on February 22, 2005, the Seventh Review Court of the Criminal Circuit of Aragua state (hereinafter “the Seventh Court”) observed that “the weekly reports [on compliance with the measure of protection] had not been submitted to the Senior Prosecutor of Aragua state,” and notified the Public Prosecution Service and the Commanding Officer of National Guard Post 28 of the measure of protection.152 Additionally, on March 10, 2005, that same court notified the Commanding Officer of National Guard Post 21 and, once again, the Commanding Officer of National Guard Post 28 of the decision that was pending compliance.153 In addition, the State also submitted evidence about an August 24, 2004 order for protective measures in favor of Néstor Caudi Barrios,154 and records of special hearings held on June 22, 2006,155 February 8, 2011, and July 27, 2011. On the last two dates, representatives of the National Guard and the Public Prosecution Service requested the exact address of some of the beneficiaries, and received them during the said hearings.156 In addition, the Court observes that there is no information concerning the implementation of specific measures of protection, other than “visits under the measure of protection” to some of the members of the Barrios family, which consisted of patrolling their homes a few times a week. According to the information furnished by the State, this procedure functioned intermittently from May to December 2004, from January to June 151 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 101. 152 Cf. Notification record No. 699 and Note No. 258-05 of February 22, 2005, of the Seventh Review Court (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome VI, attachment 27, folios 7153 and 7155). 153 Cf. Notes No. 335-05 and 334-05 of March 10, 2005, of the Seventh Review Court (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome VI, attachment 27, folios 7158 and 7159). 154 Cf. Memorandum of the Victim’s Attention Unit of September 23, 2004, supra note 143, folio 6031. 155 Cf. Record of the special hearing to verify compliance with the measure of protection (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome VI, attachment 27, folios 7380 to 7384). During this hearing, the Commander of National Guard Post 28 referred to some difficulties in complying with the measure of protection. 156 Cf. Record of the special hearing of the First Instance Criminal Review Court of Aragua state of February 8, 2011 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome VI, attachment 29, folios 7469 to 7475), and Record of the special hearing of the First Instance Criminal Review Court of Aragua state (merits file, tome VI, folios 2602 to 2611). 44