7 related to the facts which gave rise to these provisional measures would correspond to the analysis of the merits of the case by the Inter-American Commission (supra Having Seen paragraph No. 2). * * * 15. That regarding Mr. Leonel Rivero-Rodríguez and his family, the representatives have informed on the pursuits, the threats made over the telephone and the murder of two of their former bodyguards, among other facts. 16. That at the public hearing the State argued on the situation of this beneficiary, and it affirmed the following: i) with regard to the death of two of his former bodyguards: they are events without any causal relationship whatsoever with the measures ordered in favor of Mr. Rivero Rodríguez, as one of them took place while his bodyguard was off duty and the other occurred nine months after that person had ceased to act as an escort for the beneficiary; ii) with regard to the threats made over the telephone: they were made by two minors; iii) with regard to the running over: it took place within the dwelling unit where Mr. Rivero-Rodríguez used to live; it was the responsibility of one of his neighbors, about whom the authorities determined as having consumed alcohol and it was a car accident in which there were no serious injuries; iv) with regard to the pursuit that allegedly took place in 2006: it was not denounced by the beneficiary; and v) with regard to the alleged entry and search and damage to property: the investigations started in 2000, that is, a year before the ordering of provisional measures in his favor, thus being evident that they have no relation whatsoever with the case under proceedings before the Inter-American Court. The State further pointed out that the beneficiary moved and that he did not report so to the authorities, residing for almost a year in an unknown domicile, thus making it impossible to exercise the measures ordered in his favor, and that in any case his safety does not seem to have been affected during that period. 17. That at the public hearing, the representatives and Mr. Rivero-Rodríguez presented their observations to the allegations of the State and, among other arguments, they referred to: i) the lack of investigation of the facts: a) with regard to the argument by the State in the sense that the anonymous calls were made by children, the representatives read part of a forensic opinion which sets forth that the possibility that the voice belongs to a minor is rather low; and b) with regard to the investigation of other telephone calls, they read an extract of a decision in which it was stated that certain investigation measures shall be adopted and once they are carried out, “the State shall repeat the proposal for non-exercise of the criminal action”, that is, the criterion for not exercising the criminal action was taken in advance, without waiting for the result of said measures. Additionally, they referred to the other facts mentioned by the State, expressing the following: ii) regarding the pursuit, they affirmed that it was denounced; that the Public Prosecutor’s Office served notice upon the Republic’s Attorney General and the latter failed to investigate the facts; iii) regarding the murder of his two bodyguards: in one case, it occurred hours before beginning to work, and in the other, it was the case of the bodyguard who elaborated the report on the pursuit suffered by the beneficiary; and iv) regarding the change of