4 this deed “occurred in a peripheral district of the municipality of Apartadó, far from the Transport Terminal; also, it took place during the night of May 13, in a bar called the Punto Cervecero, […] and the presence of members of the National Police had been ruled out.” Regarding the death of Dairo Torres, the State reported that “an investigation is being conducted by the 97th Sectional Prosecutor’s Office of Apartadó.” In relation to the representative’s statements about the threats suffered by Rodrigo Rodríguez, the State indicated that, although protection measures had been requested for Mr. Rodríguez, it has been unable to locate him to date. According to the State, the beneficiary probably decided that “it was not prudent to receive protection from the National Police, since one of the principles of the said Community was the non-participation of any armed actor, […] because this endangered […] the local inhabitants.” Regarding the report on the alleged links between illegal armed groups and members of the Police, the State reiterated that “the police agents stationed in San José de Apartadó and in the town center of the municipality of Apartadó do not have links with any paramilitary or similar group.” In this regard, it indicated that “no direct, specific accusation has been made, merely general accusations that do not refer to specific individuals or facts.” The State also reported on visits to the Peace Community and meetings with members, in order “to review the safety measures” that had been implemented, which the beneficiaries or their representatives had allegedly not attended. In this regard, the State indicated that “the Police have tried to visit the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, accompanied by entities such as the Prosecutor’s Office, the Ombudsman’s Office, the Presidential Agency for Social Action and International Cooperation (Acción Social), and the Mayor’s Office; however, to date, it has not been possible to establish communication in order to find out about the actual situation in the La Holandita settlement, since they do not accept any help from State institutions. To the contrary, they consider any type of rapprochement to be an action that endangers the safety of the Peace Community […].” 12. That, based on the information provided by the representative, the Inter-American Commission expressed (supra sixth having seen paragraph), inter alia, its concern regarding the recent events that have affected the beneficiaries and about the “situation in the area where they live […] and its impact on the civilian population in general, given the presence of armed elements belonging to guerrilla and paramilitary groups, as well as the frequent reports of acts of acquiescence and collaboration between members of the Police and illegal armed groups.” 13. That, given the seriousness of the reports made by the representative and the difficulties in implementing the protection measures mentioned by the State, the President considers that the Court needs to receive further information in this regard, so as to guarantee the effective protection of the civilian beneficiaries of these provisional measures. * * * 14. That the State acknowledged that the meetings to reach agreement on the implementation of the provisional measures had not taken place and indicated that this was due “to the petitioners’ refusal to attend them”; nevertheless, it reiterated its willingness to collaborate with the beneficiaries of these measures. In this regard, it agreed with the InterAmerican Commission that “the measures for the effective safety and protection of the inhabitants of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó should be coordinated with the beneficiaries and their representatives. However, [it indicated that] the protection measures that have been adopted […] have fallen within the general framework of the Army’s legal