9 different bodies in charge of implementing the security and protective measures, as well as of the beneficiaries and petitioners, with the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the measures. Likewise, it expressed that "the different State bodies in charge of the protection and security of the beneficiaries have been in constant communication with the beneficiaries in order to allow them to express their opinions on the implementation of the provisional measures." 21. The representatives confirmed that the meetings indicated by the State were held and that the beneficiaries participated in them. 22. The Commission expressed its appreciation for the information provided by the State with regard to the meetings held with the beneficiaries, finding that the participation of the beneficiaries "is fundamental […] for the measures adopted to their benefit to be effective." At the same time, it asked the Court to request information from the State on the periodicity of those meetings. d. Considerations of the Court on the protective measures implemented by the State to the benefit of Ms. Mery Naranjo and her relatives (supra subparagraphs 1(1), 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), and 1(1)(c)) 23. The Court views positively the measures taken by the State to protect beneficiary Mery Naranjo and her relatives. Likewise, it takes note of the information submitted by the State with regard to the beneficiaries’ participation in the meetings for coordinating and planning the measures. 24. The Tribunal recalls that in its Order dated January 31, 2008, it specifically asked the State to maintain the permanent guard at the residence of Ms. Mery Naranjo and her family, as well as to ensure that the security forces providing protection to the beneficiaries were not the ones that “according to the beneficiaries, were involved in the facts denounced,” such that their designation be made with the participation of the beneficiaries or their representatives. 25. In this regard, the Court observes with satisfaction that the State has continually reported on the permanence of the guard post at the residence of Ms. Mery Naranjo and her family. However, it takes note of what the representatives have indicated with regard to the difficulties that have arisen in the implementation of that protective measure, in particular with regard to specific behaviors of security officials in charge of that guard post. Likewise, it observes that the State itself has recognized certain difficulties in the implementation of guard services at the residence of the Naranjo Jiménez family (supra Considering 14 and 17) In this sense, it notes with concern that the beneficiaries have denounced grave incidents allegedly committed by the officials supposedly assigned for their protection, who instead of protecting them exposed them to greater risk. Likewise, it takes note from the information provided by the State and the representatives on the aid provided for temporary relocation to the benefit of beneficiary Mery Naranjo and some of her relatives (supra Considering 9 and 11). 26. In addition, with regard to the State’s obligation to ensure that the officials providing security to the beneficiaries are not the ones allegedly involved with the facts denounced by them, the Tribunal takes note that the beneficiaries have not expressed any general discontent with the State security team providing protective services in the sense of demanding that a different security body provide those services. Rather, they have expressed their discontent with specific police officers who have been assigned to protect them and provide security due to alleged inappropriate behavior on their part. In this regard, the Court observes with satisfaction that the State has made efforts to remove those officers from the protective services provided to the beneficiaries and has tried to implement oversight mechanisms such as the logbook and the registry of new incidents that were presumably made available to beneficiary Mery Naranjo (supra