21. The Commission “observ[ed] with concern the grave threats received by Miguel Angel Sanchez, [...] who [...] continued to be the victim of police harassment.” It indicated that “[i]n his affidavit in the case [Torres Millacura et al] Mr. Sanchez requested ‘asylum’ and appealed to the Court for his ‘security, stability and integrity to preserve [his] life.’ [...] In this regard, the [Commission] asked the Court to request that the State provide immediate protection for Mr. Sanchez, through personnel other than members of the regional or national police force.” 22. The Court deems from the information provided by the parties that the State has not adopted any measures to protect the personal integrity and life of Mr. Miguel Angel Sanchez while he has been on conditional release. The Court also finds that according to the statement made by Mr. Sanchez before the notary public in of the case of Torres Millacura et al, provided by the representatives during the processing of the instant measures, which narrates the recent threats against said beneficiary (supra Considering 20), he could be at imminent risk of suffering irreparable damages to his life and personal integrity, specifically given his condition as a witness in aforementioned case. 23. Consequently, the State must adopt all measures necessary to protect the life and integrity of Mr. Miguel Angel Sanchez, and that these measures must remain in effect for a period of at least eight months. The Court calls to mind that these protective measures should be agreed on with the participation of the beneficiary or his representatives, and should also be implemented as soon as possible, making prompt collaboration toward this on the part of the representatives and the State particularly important (infra Considering 35). 24. Without detriment to this, and for the purposes of the adequate monitoring of the instant provisional measures, the Court requests that the parties submit up-todate and detailed information on the situation of risk faced by Mr. Miguel Angel Sanchez, including specific facts, if relevant, as well as on the actions conducted to implement the measures ordered in his favor, and substantiating the need to maintain or, if appropriate, lift said measures. A.4) The situation of Tamara Bolívar. 25. The State reported that “in the proceedings entitled ‘Choque Trujillo Luis S/Pto. Robo Agravado R/Víctima Rawson,’” the Trelew Criminal Judge ordered in resolutions dated June 16, 17 and 18, 2010, that Ms. Tamara Bolivar be placed under house arrest in the home of Ms. María Leontina Millacura Llaipén and “under the responsibility” of the latter, "maintaining the house arrest [carried out by the Argentine Naval Prefecture] in the context of [these provisional] measures." 26. Therepresentatives reported that Ms. Bolívar "was deprived of liberty in a precinct in the city of Rawson[,] where she was brutally beaten, […] tortured and/or sexually abused and/or subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment […]." Regarding this, as an appendix dated June 17, 2010 (supra Having Seen 3), they submitted a recording in which Ms. Bolívar “described the incidents she experienced in recent months[,] carried out by police personnel of the Chubut Province[. She indicated that at least two police officers] told her that they were going to finish off Iván Torres[, that is,] disappear him.” Likewise, the representatives indicated that after filing for a writ of habeas corpus to the benefit of the beneficiary, she was ordered to serve time in preventative detention "in the home of Ms. [Millacura 9