7 lack of police protection in Villavicencio when she was threatened at her workplace and residence. The representatives also indicated that Ms. Barrera received threatening telephone calls on August 10, 19, and 26, 2009, events that occurred several more times, but the beneficiary would later refuse to answer such calls. These happenings were brought to the attention of the Human Rights Directorate and the Human Rights Division of the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Relations in August 2009 and April 2010. On the other hand, the representatives reported to have information that the prosecutor of Santa Rosa de Viterbo is moving forward with a criminal investigation for the facts forming the subject matter of the complaint, and the prosecutor’s office had given “instructions to the first brigade, to the police department, and the DAS directors in order to coordinate a security schema for Ms. Viviana Barrera Cruz and her husband Gustavo Enrique Quintero.” The representatives maintained that “the protective mechanisms that have been implemented based on the provisional measures cannot be the only measure taken by the State to safeguard the life and safety of the beneficiaries”; however, they expressed appreciation for the State’s willingness to implement them. Finally, the representatives reported that on April 8, 2010 they became aware that, owing to the threats received, “Viviana Barrera and her family were obligated to relocate to another city in Colombia.” 13. During the hearing, the Commission expressed its view that the provisional measures should not be rescinded only for lack of information on the present risk. Regarding Ms. Viviana Barrera’s situation, the Commission indicated that it was “essential for the efficacy of the measures that fluid [lines of] communication [be] maintain[ed] and request[ed] that the State [...] adopt all effective measures at its disposition in order to locate [her].” The Commission further observed that the State “delayed more than three months to ‘request assignment of a working group to create and execute a methodological program’ to provide protection to the beneficiary.” Also, the Commission observed with concern that the State has not made any significant progress in the investigation into the events forming the subject matter of the complaint. 14. Acts of harassment and threats have emerged that have caused the internal displacement of Ms. Viviana Barrera and her family members. At the time of issuance of the present Order, the State has not fulfilled its commitment to carry out a risk and threat assessment study of her present situation. 15. The Court positively assesses the State’s efforts in implementing provisional measures in favor of Ms. Viviana Barrera and her family, particularly in providing her with a communication device and in the State’s willingness to conduct a risk and threat assessment study. On the other hand, the Court laments both the State’s failure to locate the beneficiary in order to determine the security and protective measures appropriate to the risk she faces as well as the representatives’ inability or failure to provide this information to the State following the monitoring and coordination meeting held on April 8, 2010. Having regard for the foregoing, the Court exhorts the representatives of the beneficiary and the State to seek out the most appropriate channels of communication to overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of adequate implementation of protective measures to the detriment of the beneficiary. 3) Regarding Sara Paola Pinzón López and Luz Mery Pinzón López 16. The State reported that the disciplinary action before the Attorney General’s Office, initiated by Ms. Sara Paola Pinzón’s complaint against members of the