-9e) They requested that, based on new facts and information that have come to light following the Order of the President of June 21, 2006, the measures should be expanded to the following persons: Iván Eladio Torres, in order to protect his life and physical integrity; the granddaughters of María Millacura Llaipén (daughters of Marcos and Valeria Torres), because they had not attended school for the past week at the request of the Director of the establishment, since she said that she did “not want to have problems with them, in direct relation to this case”; Marcela, “wife of Marcos Torres”; Luis Alberto Gajardo1, witness in the case, who was with David Hayes in the First Departmental Police Station and who, last Sunday, reported that he had been the victim of unlawful coercion at the hands of the Fifth Departmental Police State were he was detained; Alberto and Noelia Hayes, father and sister of David Hayes, because the whole family group required protection; and Miguel Ángel Gallardo, friend of Iván Torres, who the police were trying to hold responsible for Iván’s disappearance. They also indicated that there were other individuals regarding whom “they could request the Court to provide protection, but whose situation is unknown.” They were Diego Álvarez, Mauricio Agüero and Cristian Gamín, friends of Iván Torres and witnesses of what happened to him. 18. The arguments presented by the State during the said public hearing (supra Having seen paragraph 15), in which it indicated, inter alia, that: a) It wanted to adopt the necessary measures to clarify the facts and safeguard the integrity and life of the beneficiaries. The measures implemented had been mutually agreed. The situation of each of the beneficiaries had been taken into consideration, including the young people who lacked a fixed domicile. The State was “open to dialogue” with the petitioners and the InterAmerican Commission to evaluate all the necessary measures that should be implemented. This willingness of the State had even been apparent in aspects that could not be required legally, such as the assistance provided so that the representatives and Mrs. Millacura could attend the hearing before the Court; b) From the outset, the Chubut government had shown its concern regarding the disappearance of Iván Torres and had supported all the measures to protect the next of kin and the witnesses. It had undertaken to collaborate with the national Government in complying with all the measures ordered by the Commission and the Court. The State made itself available to the InterAmerican Commission to visit Argentina and verify the situation; c) Regarding the Commission’s precautionary measures, in March 2006, the Commission had been invited to assist Chubut, owing to the difficulties of the case, and to talk to the representatives, but the Commission had not done so. On May 5, 2006, Argentina submitted its last report. Since then there had been no other communication with the Commission. The Commission did not inform the State that it was unsatisfied with the report; d) Regarding the measures of protection and their effectiveness, the State had been adopting all the measures that had been mutually agreed. Protection 1 Attachment 1 to the brief with the request for provisional measures of June 20, 2006, explains that Luis Alberto Gajardo has the same name as the witness Luis Alberto Gajardo, who testified in the Iván Torres case and allegedly died of a shot to the head.