Colombian State […] limiting its action solely to the last of the [Court] Orders and disregarding an accumulation of facts and circumstances brought to the attention of the Court […] throughout the years [that the measures] have been in effect […] in which the rulings on protection have not been effectively implemented.” 33. Regarding the lack of protection for the ASFADDES offices due to the change of premises of those offices, the representatives noted that “ASFADDES informed the State a long time ago about the transfer of the offices and also that none of these [premises], except for the national headquarters (located in the city of Bogotá) is owned by the organization, a factor that does not prevent their physical protection.” 34. In a report of April 17, 2013, the representatives considered that the “measures of protection for the ASFADDES offices […] have not been fully implemented […], for example, and despite the time that has elapsed, the work to adapt and maintain the armored installations in the ASFADDES headquarters in Bogotá has not yet materialized.” 35. The representatives stated that “although [they are] aware of the added value of having a state body in charge of coordinating the protection of persons, the possibility of a real and effective implementation” of the provisional measures ordered by the Court “cannot depend on the opinion of the CERREM”, since this “puts pressure on the legally binding character of the decisions of the Inter-American Court.” 2.3. Observations of the Commission 36. The Commission argued that “the State cannot limit and condition the implementation of the provisional measures ordered by the Court to its domestic rules, neither as regards the protection of the offices nor the personal protection of certain beneficiaries.” It considered that “the State [did] not submit information regarding the protection provided to the ASFADDES offices, or to the individual beneficiaries of these measures, but that it only makes general reference to the State protection system.” 2.4. Considerations of the Court 37. The Court takes note of the information provided by the representatives on the events that occurred between 2008 and 2013. It also acknowledges the meetings held between the representatives of ASFADDES and State authorities to agree on protection measures for the different offices of ASFADDES. Such negotiations make it possible to ensure that the actions agreed to implement the protection ordered through the provisional measures, achieve various levels of efficacy. Moreover, they may be useful to restore the beneficiaries’ trust in the State institutions. In this regard, the Court considers it essential to create an atmosphere of trust between the institutions responsible for providing protection in each of the offices, and those who benefit from such protection; therefore fluid and constant communication may be useful. 38. Regarding this matter, the Court notes that although several alleged incidents have been reported, some of them serious, at present there is no specific, detailed and up-to-date information from the representatives regarding a specific situation of risk to any of the ASFADDES offices, between 2012 and 2013. In their briefs issued since August 8, 2011, the representatives have not submitted or provided further information about any incidents after that of June 24, 2011, when a threatening message was received at the ASFADDES offices in Popayán. Since that date, there have been no specific facts that would constitute a situation of extreme gravity and 11