2 expansion of measures issued by the Court on July 4, 2006. In this brief, Colombia reported, inter alia, that: “it was mindful of the measures required to ensure the due and effective protection of the right to life and personal integrity” of the beneficiaries; and that the investigation being conducted by the 49th Prosecutor’s Office, Cartagena Section, into “the alleged threats against Luis José Pundor Quintero and Ana Diva Quintero” was in its preliminary stages. 5. The brief of September 25, 2006, in which the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their observations on the State’s report of September 15, 2006 (supra fourth having seen paragraph). In this brief, the representatives indicated the following, inter alia: (a) Regarding the beneficiary, Sandra Belinda Montero, and her next of kin, that the Government “had not notified Sandra Montero about the results of the risk studies conducted on her situation”; that they have “been unable to obtain any information on her safety situation directly,” and that “the means of communication (Avantel) she had been given as a protection mechanism […had been] returned to the Ministry of the Interior and Justice.” They added that the Government “had not included any information on the status of the suspended investigation”; (b) Regarding the beneficiary, Salomón Flórez, and his next of kin, “[t]he delay in the implementation of the support mechanisms to facilitate their displacements means that this family is currently in a dangerous area.” In addition, they stated that “[t]he Flórez family has chosen to move frequently as a protection mechanism, and this has prevented [the representatives] from keeping in permanent contact; consequently, [they do not have] recent information about the status of the implementation of the measures or about this family’s safety situation.” They also said that the next of kin of other victims in the case of the 19 Tradesmen “have indicated that rumors persist concerning possible cases of extortion”; (c) Regarding the beneficiaries, Ana Diva Quintero and Luis José Pundor, and their next of kin, “[t]he most recent news is that these families had to leave the country as a safety measure; consequently, [the representatives] have not advised the State about their requirements, with the exception of the need to determine the identity of those responsible for the threats, and that the risk factors that obliged the families to abandon their usual place of residence should be eliminated.” The representatives added that “[i]n view of the above, [they] do not understand how the investigation that the Government mentions in its report was originated and why it is being conducted in a city such as Cartagena that is so far from where the events took place”; and (d) “The absence of a monitoring mechanism and entity to ensure compliance with the measures adversely affects the possibility of making progress towards complying with the measures ordered by the Court.” 6. The brief of November 14, 2006, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted its observations on the State’s report of September 15, 2006 (supra fourth having seen paragraph). The Commission stated, inter alia, that: