5 11. At the public hearing the Commission expressed its “profound disappointment” in the evolvement of the hearing given the State’s lack of preparation and the useless information presented. Additionally, it made reference to the failures in the implementation of the protection measures by the State: partial and insufficient visits, absence of measures to guarantee the return of the next of kin who were forced to move and the lack of participation of all the beneficiaries in the meetings for the implementation of these measures. Therefore, the Commission concluded that it is necessary to create a “form of dialogue […] in the presence of state officials who have decision-making power” and it demanded the implementation of measures for the effective protection of the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries, the participation of the beneficiaries in the design of said measures, the investigation of the facts that resulted in the measures, and for the State to inform on the status of compliance regarding the same. 12. At the public hearing, the State acknowledged that there are problems in the implementation of said measures, but it reiterated its willingness to comply with them. However, it insisted that the implementation must be carried out in strict compliance with the “Law for the protection of victims, witnesses, and other procedural subjects” of October 4, 2006. C) On the implementation of the permanent measures of protection necessary to offer security to the homes 13. At the hearing and through a brief filed on January 28, 2010, the representatives stated that the permanent protection measures at the homes of Maritza Barrios, Juan Barrios, and Orismar Carolina Alzul García “were not effectively implemented.” However they agreed to lift these special measures in order to implement the provisional measures “pursuant with the parameters […] stated [in their brief of January 28, and] with the condition that the executors and supervisors be officials specialized in guarding and custody of people.” Thus, the representatives handed over a list with the addresses of the members of the Barrios family who reside in the State of Aragua, in order to achieve the best implementation of the measures. 14. At the public hearing the Commission reiterated the State’s deficiencies in the implementation of the protection measures and demanded their implementation for the effective protection of the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries. 15. At the public hearing, the State did not present updated information regarding the state of compliance with said measures. However, it stated that the beneficiaries had not collaborated enough, since they had not provided the correct home addresses or informed of a change in the same to the state authorities, or they had refused to provide the address of their homes, arguing fear and lack of trust in the police agents, and that, therefore the State had not been able to comply with the measures, despite having the best intention of doing so. Likewise, it stated that it was “impossible to coordinate and guarantee [the protection of 28 homes]” and that, in that case, they would have to “place all the people at a single location, or two […] or three,” or, if necessary, move them to out of Aragua and to a distinct state. Finally, the State expressed its willingness to consider the proposals made by the representatives and to continue its dialogue with them.