6 normal guarantees are not sufficient in the specific case. The State reported on some measures that it had taken to guarantee the situation in Mapiripán and in the region in terms of safety and public order; among them, it increased the presence of National Police in the area; ascertained in September 2008 that none of the beneficiaries lived in Mapiripán; and provided information on the “Godfather Plan” “whose aim is to assign a police unit to maintain direct communication with any person facing any elevated level of risk or threats.” Based on these efforts, the State requested rescission of the provisional measures concerning all these persons. 10. The Court notes that it has not received detailed, specific information regarding the existence of new acts of harassment or threats affecting this group of 16 beneficiaries. In responding to the specific needs for each beneficiary as required by the Court, the representatives did not submit any information in addition to that which was already made known during the public hearing. What’s more, the representatives indicated that regarding the Sanmiguel family “no risks have become apparent” (supra Considering 6(f)) and that with respect to the Contreras family, no updated information exists concerning their risk (supra Considering 6(g)). Nonetheless, pursuant to the general information before the Tribunal, the beneficiaries’ vulnerability persists in several ways both as victims of the Mapiripán massacre and, particularly, due to their forced displacement. 2) Regarding Viviana Barrera 11. Based on the alleged threats against Ms. Barrera, the State remarked that a monitoring and cooperation meeting was held on September 3, 2009 in which the It indicated that on State reached several agreements for her protection.4 September 8, 2009 the Ministry of Justice and the Interior provided Ms. Barrera with an Avantel cellular phone and ordered that a new risk and threat assessment study be carried out dealing with her (then) current place of residence. However, the State noted that this study was never conducted - nor were the perimetric patrols to which the National Police had agreed - because the beneficiary could not be located. Regarding the investigation into the allegedly threatening telephone calls received by Ms. Barrera, the State indicated that “[the] methodological program calls for conducting interviews with the victims in order to clarify whether the threats are related to the statement the beneficiary gave” before the Inter-American Court. Despite this, the State noted that “at the present time, it has not been possible to locate her.” Thus, the State noted that the active participation of the petitioners is essential to obtaining results in investigations and again reiterated that the representatives of the beneficiary have not reported on the existence of new acts of threats, nor have they presented any request for protective measures in their favor. For this reason, the State requests a rescission of the provisional measures issued in favor of Ms. Barrera and her family. 12. The representatives affirmed during the hearing that Ms. Viviana Barrera’s situation was worrying, because she lived in Mapiripán and was obligated to relocate together with her family over three departments of the country (Cundinamarca, Meta, and Boyacá) owing to the alleged public statements on the part of the mayor of Mapiripán in 2005 in which he said that Ms. Barrera was going to receive a “multimillion-dollar compensation.” They added that that situation got worse due to the 4 According to the State, these refer to: i) delivering to Ms. Viviana Barrera one (1) Avantel communication device, ii) ordering a new Risk and Threat Assessment Study on the beneficiary in her present place of residence, and iii) considering the possibility of conducting a Risk and Threat Assessment Study in the city where Ms. Barrera will take up residence.