5 file”, reason for which “it [was] likely [to] determine that the State has failed to comply with its obligation to investigate in a serious, thorough and effective manner the facts” which gave rise to the measures in her favor. On the other hand, the Court observes that at the public hearing of February 5, 2008, no specific recent facts which could involve a situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding this beneficiary were informed either. 6. That as to the alleged lack of information on the investigation of the alleged threat occurred in 2002, against Bárbara Zamora, the State expressed that it served notice of the decision of non-exercise of the criminal action upon the claimant, and it further informed the name of the person who, on December 8, 2003, allegedly received the summons of said decision, and it attached a copy thereto. The State further expressed that in several occasions the beneficiary was informed that she could turn to the Fiscalía Central de Investigación para la Seguridad de las Personas e Instituciones (Central Public Prosecutor Office of Investigation for the Safety of Persons and Institutions) in order to request that the preliminary inquiry be recovered from the Recording Office of the Attorney General of the Federal District and personally consult the agreement of non-exercise of the criminal action. Finally, the State attached a copy of the decision of non-exercise of the criminal action. In said decision there is a reference to the event considered as threatening by the beneficiary, the investigation proceedings adopted and the grounds due to which it was decided not to exercise the criminal action in said preliminary enquiry. 7. That as to the members of family Ochoa y Plácido, in response to the Court request for detailed and updated information on the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 3), in their brief dated September 21, 2007, the representatives did not inform on any fact which may imply a risk for their life or physical integrity. However, the representatives expressed that “[a]s long as […] there is no progress in the investigations and as long as the murder of Digna Ochoa is not clarified, the risk suffered by their next of kin is updated and remains in force.” On the other hand, the Court observes that at the public hearing of February 5, 2008, no specific recent facts which could imply a situation of extreme gravity and urgency regarding the members of the Ochoa y Plácido family were informed either. 8. That nonetheless, at the above-mentioned hearing, the representatives affirmed that the investigation of the death of Digna Ochoa y Plácido would be reopened and would gain new impulse as "new elements which would allow the progress of the investigation have arisen”, specifically referring to two testimonies, copies of which were attached on that occasion. The Inter-American Court observes that apart from what has been pointed out regarding the lack of investigation (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 7) or the eventual progress thereof, no new elements which allow to consider that there is still a situation of extreme gravity and urgency endangering the personal integrity or the life of those beneficiaries have been contributed with. 9. That additionally, at the pubic hearing the representatives informed that the office of the present attorney of the family Ochoa y Plácido was a target for theft. The