9 26. The brief of April 29, 2003, and its attachments, in which the Commission advised that “it had written to the Venezuelan State on March 13, 2003, requesting a meeting during the week of March 17, 2003,” but had not received a reply to this request. The Commission had repeated this request to Venezuela on April 15, 2003, and the State had replied on April 23, 2003, that “it [was] studying an appropriate date, in order to propose it to the Commission and [...] reach agreement on a date and time for this meeting. 27. The brief of May 9, 2003, in which the Commission forwarded copies of two letters sent to the State (supra twenty-sixth having seen paragraph). 28. The brief of June 9, 2003, and its attachments, in which the Commission presented its comments on the fourth report of the State of April 25, 2003 (supra twenty-fifth having seen paragraph), which are summarized as follows: a) Regarding the investigation of the facts, more than a year had elapsed since the Office of the Attorney General of Venezuela had begun investigations in this case and to date no one had been detained. Likewise, no judicial proceeding had been filed and no formal accusation had been made against anyone involved. Moreover, “the victims ha[d] not had access to the file,” because the documents requested “[were] confidential”; b) Regarding the measures of protection, “only one paragraph” of the 14 pages of the report referred to the measures of protection granted to Liliana Ortega and the other members of COFAVIC. Furthermore, the remaining references repeated information that had been presented previously. The beneficiaries of the provisional measures had indicated that the members of COFAVIC had never received police protection and that only Liliana Ortega was protected by these measures, even though the officials assigned to protect her could not enter their command posts or have weapons while providing their services, which made it difficult to ensure “safe and effective” protection”; c) Regarding the participation of the petitioners in the planning and implementation of the measures “[i]t was inadmissible’ that the State ha[d] allegedly appointed the Intelligence and Prevention Services Division (DISIP) and the Police of the Libertador municipality to implement the measures, without the consent of the beneficiaries, when they had requested that the Motorized Division of the Metropolitan Police should protect them; and d) Regarding the monitoring mechanism, on March 13, 2003, the Commission sent a note to the State, requesting a meeting and, on April 15, 2003, repeated this request. It received a telephone call from the Permanent Mission of Venezuela to the OAS to hold a meeting on June 4, 2003. The Commission agreed to this suggestion and requested written confirmation, but no reply had been received. 29. The fifth report of the State of August 15, 2003, and its attachments, in which it advised that the “Director General of the Metropolitan Police ha[d] advised the Director General of Police Coordination of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice that the protection requested in the precautionary measures for […] Liliana Ortega [was] provided by two police agents from that institution 24 hours each day, and