10 Considering 14 and 17). However, it notes that despite the fact that the beneficiaries are apparently initially in agreement with those corrective measures (supra Considering 17 and 18), they continue to report problems with their implementation and effectiveness, in particular with regard to "actions taken by the police officers in charge of their security." Likewise, it takes note that the representatives expressed their disagreement over what they consider to be a unilateral suspension of the measure to provide transportation support that had previously been granted to beneficiary Mery Naranjo, as well as of the problems indicated by the beneficiaries with regard to the police escort measure during travel offered by the State (supra Considering 11). At the same time, it observes that the State indicated that the beneficiary did not report on her movements and did not accept the police escort that had been offered (supra Considering 12). 27. The Tribunal recalls the the State’s adoption of particular measures of protection is not enough. Rather, these measures and their implementation must be effective such that the threats toward and harassment of the individuals whose protection is sought cease. 12 In addition, it highlights that the beneficiaries and their representatives are required to offer whatever cooperation is necessary to bring about the effective implementation of the measures.13 28. The State must take the pertinent steps for the provisional measures set forth in this order to be planed and applied with the participation of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives such that the measures be provided in a diligent and effective manner. Likewise, the Court highlights the importance of the duty to cooperate with the beneficiaries and their representatives for adequate implementation of the security measures, as well as the need for State authorities to establish clear and direct means of communication with the beneficiaries in order to establish the necessary trust for their adequate protection. The Court highlights that the positive participation of the State and, particularly, the representatives is crucial for the coordination and implementation of the provisional measures in this matter. In this sense, it reiterates what was set forth in its order of January 31, 2008, where it indicated that “all the parties must propose and agree on the measures if any of them considers that the existing ones are not adequate.”14 29. By virtue of the foregoing considerations, the Tribunal finds it necessary for the State to report in a detailed and complete manner on the measures it may have adopted to improve the effectiveness of the protective measures implemented, such that they be adequate for the situation of Ms. Mery Naranjo Jiménez and her relatives, as well as to report on the measures it is implementing to offer those beneficiaries participation in the planning of the above-mentioned measures. 1.2 On the measures adopted to protect the life and personal integrity of Luisa María Escudero Jiménez 30. Colombia reported in February of 2010 that, at the request of the beneficiaries, it had started the proceedings to include the minor Luisa María Escudero Jiménez in the Social Security contribution regimen through the Health Promotion Body (EPS SURA in its Spanish acronym). 15 In July 2010, the State confirmed that as of that date, the 12 Cf. Matter of Juan Almonte Herrera et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Court of March 24, 2010, Considering 16. 13 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of September 2, 2010, Considering 20. 14 Cf. Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of January 31, 2008, Considering 12. 15 The State indicated that the representatives had requested the inclusion of the beneficiary in the Social Security contribution regime "as they were not in agreement with the service offered by the subsidiary social