4 conduct the respective risk and threat assessment studies in order to determine the contours of their situation. The State also reported that during the monitoring and coordination meeting held on April 8, 2010, the petitioners reported that the beneficiaries had stated they did not wish to provide the State with their location, taking into account that “on those occasions when this information has been provided, the beneficiaries have received new threats against them.” The State stressed that the representatives “did not have any request for measures in favor of the beneficiaries.” In its last brief, the State remarked that there is no real possibility of implementing provisional measures in their favor and that “it is not obligated to [carry out what is] impossible, bearing in mind that the petitioners have not even provided the minimum information required.” For this reason, the State moved for rescission of provisional measures. 6. After the hearing, the representatives reported to have reestablished contact with the beneficiaries, although they did not specify with whom. They also indicated certain general and permanent risk facts, such as: a) The troubling security situation in the municipality of Mapiripán, where the presence of armed individuals and groups of paramilitaries who continue to commit criminal acts in the Department of Meta persists. They also added that family members of the victims refuse to return for safety reasons and wish to be relocated to another part of the country; b) The persistence of impunity in the face of the facts giving rise to the request for protection, of particular note: the lack of progress in the investigations which are the State’s duty and not that of the beneficiaries; the forced displacement of families; the lack of disciplinary actions regarding the alleged statements of the Mayor of Mapiripán; and the surveillance on the part of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) at the time of taking the victims’ statements; c) The persistence of impunity concerning the Mapiripán massacre, the characteristics of which allow one to infer the existence of “structural (risk) factors” in this case; further, certain results from the criminal process could give rise to “new instances of intimidation and harassment against those who have insisted that justice be done in this case”; d) The special conditions of vulnerability in which the beneficiaries find themselves because, due to the dynamic of the facts, “they live in reasonable fear.” Also, due to their having been displaced and victimized again in various ways, they require special protection; e) Regarding Ms. Nory Giraldo and her daughter, Carmen Johana Giraldo, the representatives indicated that they were the victims of acts of harassment that forced them to be displaced several times to Villavicencio, Cali, and Bogota as a result of the threats they received after having testified before the Inter-American Court and after issuance of the Judgment in the Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. It was also reported that one of Ms. Nory Giraldo’s sons was killed during this same time period, seemingly by paramilitary agents, although the case was not investigated; f) Regarding the Sanmiguel family, the representatives reported that they are presently in the city of Villavicencio and that “no particular risks have arisen,” although they did stress their “continued lack of peace of mind over safety in the municipality”; and