7 the Ocaña Judicial Police went to the residence of William Rodríguez Quintero to serve the arrest warrant against him and, finding him in public, “execute[d] his capture and immediately read him his rights.” According to the State, the officials were clearly marked as members of the Judicial Police. The officials then transferred Mr. William Rodríguez Quintero to the Ocaña Basic Criminal Investigation Unit where he signed an attestation of fair treatment. The State similarly stressed that this arrest had its own judicial check on legality because the following day on May 15, 2010, the hearing on the legality of the arrest was held in which “neither Mr. [William] Rodríguez nor the delegate from the Public Ministry were said […] to have found objections to the [legality of this arrest and capture].” Consequently, the State reiterated that “at no point, as a consequence of Mr. [William] Rodríguez’s capture, was the life or physical integrity of any of the Rodríguez Quintero brothers at risk.” 17. Additionally, the State provided information on investigations conducted because of other events reported by the beneficiaries or their representatives. Regarding the complaint lodged against the alleged intimidating visit on the part of officers from the Ocaña Judicial Police on November 6, 2009, the State indicated in its brief of April 27, 2010, that the investigation was under the authority of the Ocaña prosecutor’s office, who had undertaken investigative activities and had already made out two suspects, both National Police officers.8 The State added that the Ocaña prosecutor’s office had requested an interview with the alleged victims but, according to the State, they evaded their investigator’s repeated requests for information. Furthermore, the State provided information as to the ongoing investigations into the grenade attack of May 19, 2009. In that regard, the State said that this investigation was the responsibility of the First Special Prosecutor of Cúcuta and that it would be carried out jointly, for procedural connectedness, with the investigation begun into the death of Mr. Jhon Carlos Rodríguez Quintero. The State added that in August 2009, Mr. Yimmy Rodriguez Quintero had requested that the Solicitor General’s office transfer investigative responsibilities for that case to the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit. A response from the Solicitor General was forthcoming. 18. For its part, the Commission considered that by virtue of the extraordinary risk “in which the State had determined the Rodríguez Quintero family members were exposed,” as well as the fact that portions of information presented by the parties were contradictory, it was necessary to maintain the provisional measures in place. The Commission also stressed that the State’s submissions did not constitute the “concrete and detailed information [requested as to] each beneficiary nor […] the risk assessment previously sought by the […] Court.” Thus, the Commission indicated that “[t]he implementation of these protective measures, together with an investigation into the origin of the extraordinary risk that the beneficiaries face,” were crucial to avoiding the occurrence of irreparable harm to the Rodríguez Quintero family. * 8 * * In a previous report dated November 23, 2009 (supra Having Seen clause three), the State had declared that said police agents “at no point threatened or intimidated Yimmy Rodríguez, but were only following orders as part of a criminal investigation headed by the Solicitor General’s office against William Rodríguez Quintero for the crime of theft.” Nonetheless, the State indicated that “for the sake of transparency” and in fulfillment of its obligation in the face of a complaint, it sent a report to the office of Complaint Assessment and Reporting so that they could study to feasibility of initiating a disciplinary investigation.