home. Patrols have been conducted regularly in the Tlachinollan offices in Tlapa de Comonfort, but have not been conducted consistently and effectively with respect to other beneficiaries and in certain locations. In addition, permanent police presence has been provided consistently at the Tlachinollan offices in Ayutla de los Libres since August 8, 2011. 8. Regarding the State’s reports and the representatives’ observations, the Commission, among other considerations: a) assessed positively the State’s efforts to correct the operational flaws in the protective measures ordered in favor of the beneficiaries; b) indicated that despite the time that has elapsed since the Court ordered the provisional measures, the State continues to repeatedly report information on the steps taken toward implementing the remaining measures, and to date those measures have not been implemented. In this regard, the Commission considered that it would be useful and necessary to receive information about those steps the State has said it has taken, and the obstacles preventing them from having a satisfactory result. Similarly, it considered it necessary to receive information about corrective and preventive measures the State is implementing in this regard, and c) indicated that the implementation of the patrols continues to be flawed, and thus it necessary for the State to intensify its efforts to provide the necessary protection to the beneficiaries. 9. The Court observes that the State took steps aimed at improving the security of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, such as the delivery of communication equipment, the installation of alarms and other security measures in certain homes and offices, and the implementation of periodic police patrols. In addition, the Court assesses positively the State’s efforts to implement the measures ordered by the Court, as well as to correct the operational flaws in the protective measures indicated by the representatives. In regard to the specific protective measures and the discrepancies between the parties regarding compliance with the said measures, the Court recalls that, in its Order of April 30, 2009, it determined that the State must take the pertinent steps in order for the provisional measures to be diligently and effectively planned and applied with the participation of the beneficiaries or their representatives. The Court underlined that the positive participation of the State, and especially of the representatives, is essential for coordinating the implementation of the provisional measures in the instant case. Consequently, the Court deems it necessary for them to continue their efforts in order for the implementation of the instant measures to move forward in a coordinated, constructive, and prompt manner, with communication and agreement between the parties. In addition, the parties must send updated information to the Court on the progress achieved. * 10. With regard to the investigation of the facts that led to the instant measures, the State reported that it began preliminary inquiry proceedings with regard to all the facts about which the representatives filed complaints domestically, and that it has “taken a variety of steps to address the security risks alleged by the beneficiaries.” It reported on the incorporation of a team of experts in criminal investigation from a human rights perspective to review the investigations, and that two meetings were 4