15 threats are ongoing, nor has it specified the measures that would be necessary to guard against them (infra Considering clause 20). 17. Concerning the events that have occurred over the last six months (supra Having Seen 17), the Commission reported that Ms. Lina Paola Malagón had been the target of surveillance in January 2010 by a “public transportation vehicle” and that other members of the CCJ, like Alejandra Vega Rodríguez, had been the target of illicit conduct on the part of DAS officials. However, it did so without providing further evidence regarding how these alleged events occurred, as such information would enable the Court to properly assess the situations in question (supra Considering clause 13). 18. On the other hand, as far as protective measures are concerned, the State claimed to have offered various security and protective measures to the CCJ members in order to safeguard their lives and right to humane treatment, within the framework of precautionary measures (supra Having Seen 7); nonetheless, the members rejected the measures proposed. In the present proceeding, the State has indicated its willingness to adopt specific measures to provide immediate and effective protection to the members of the CCJ. 19. In this regard, pursuant to the Court’s instruction (supra Having Seen 18), the Commission indicated that the protection must take into account the particular “circumstances, needs, and preferences of the beneficiaries,” and that CCJ members would not accept traditional personal security measures owing to their having been “used as an information-gathering tool for State intelligence services.” Consequently, the Commission, echoing the claims of the beneficiaries, addressed to the Court its request that the Court issue an order guaranteeing the cessation of the aforementioned illegal surveillance activities on the part of State agents, or adopting measures that ensure that intelligence services show respect for human rights and are subject to both civilian and judicial controls (supra Having Seen 20). 20. In consideration of the foregoing, the Court observes that in the face of these alleged incidents of threats, harassment, and intimidation, the CCJ members have not accepted the security and protective measures offered. These same services would be necessary in the event of a real threat demonstrating extreme seriousness, urgency, and the risk of irreparable harm. Thus, the measures would serve to protect and guarantee the rights to life and humane treatment that the Commission has duly noted are at issue in its request for provisional measures. The Tribunal notes that, when presented with the alleged incidents of threats, harassment, and intimidation, the type of measures the CCJ members have requested (supra Having Seen 20) are of a different character that do not properly correspond to the present procedure, in which the fundamental goal of the measures is the protection and efficacious preservation of an individual’s life and right to humane treatment. 21. Regarding the alleged harassment of the CCJ members from within the general environment of hostility in which human rights defenders live in Colombia, this Court finds, in accordance with the evidence presented, that these events do not per se meet the necessary requirements for a situation of “extreme gravity,” urgency, and likely irreparable harm. 15 15 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering clause four; Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et