logistical provisions for the person responsible for protecting him, he has had to lodge the guard in his own house, which has led to problems that have affected the harmony between the two. In addition, Mr. Hinostroza stated on December 23, 2010, that, “after the last acquittal, the comprehensive health insurance was taken away from [them] without taking into account all the attacks and resulting psychological problems faced by him and his daughters, who were receiving psychological and psychiatric treatment.” He also noted that the State had falsified several documents, which made it seem that he and his family had declined personal security. 10. The State indicated that “it had not issued any order for the [security measures] to be lifted,” and that it continues to “provide police services to the petitioner” consisting of “immediate [and] permanent personal security for 24 hours a day, with 12 […] police officers” benefiting Mr. Hinostroza and his relatives, along with “two […] agents of the [..] Peruvian National Police” for the protection of Mr. Saldaña Ramírez, his attorney. Regarding the police vehicle designated for the beneficiary’s security service, it indicated that it had been temporarily replaced because it was not in the proper condition to remain in service. The State said the vehicle had been re-assigned on January 4, 2011. In addition, the State “flatly” denied that it had withdrawn the comprehensive health insurance from the beneficiary, his wife and his daughters following the handing down of an acquittal, stating that the beneficiaries “continue to enjoy comprehensive health insurance.” Lastly, Peru advised that “Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s assertions […] regarding […] the drafting of false documents by the State […] allegedly indicating that [Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza and his family] had waived the personal measures of security” were false. 11. The Commission argued that “from the information available, it appears that the State is complying with the measures of protection.” However, given the lack of precise information from the State, it indicated that “the way in which the protection benefiting the beneficiaries is being implemented is unclear.” 12. The Court observes that for more than five years, the State has adopted measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries, in particular by providing permanent personal security guards and other elements, such as assigning a security vehicle. The Court appreciates these measures taken by the State and reiterates that when ordering Peru to adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries, the Court did not determine the specific means of protection required. Nevertheless, it ordered that the measures of protection should be implemented such that they be effective and, in particular, using mechanisms to allow the beneficiaries or their representatives to coordinate with the State authorities responsible for planning and implementing them. The Tribunal notes that in this case, mechanisms of participation or coordination between the State and the representatives of the beneficiaries have not been established. 13. The Court observes that since January 4, 2011, the beneficiaries have again have a vehicle - which had been replaced by other vehicles intermittently since January 28, 2010 - assigned permanently for security purposes. Despite this, it notes discrepancies between the parties as regards the time period during which the beneficiaries did not have the vehicle. In relation to Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s alleged verbal rejection of the protection that he had been receiving, the Court notes that although the case file contains several documents from the Head of the State Security Division reporting this verbal waiver, in fact this agency indicated that “police personnel of [the] PNP Unit continue to provide security services […] 4