4 it requested that the State, as provided for in Article 26(5) of the Rules of Procedure, submit its relevant observations on the request for provisional measures by November 16, 2009. 6. The State’s brief of November 17, 2009 whereby it presented its arguments discussing its view as to the inappropriateness of the prima facie character of evidentiary support underlying a request for provisional measures. The State argued, inter alia, that while recognizing that in issuing protective measures the Court does not require, in principle, evidence of the facts which prima facie appear to meet the requirements of Article 63(2) of the Convention, maintaining protective measures in place requires the Court’s assessment as to the ongoing nature of the gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable harm that prompted them. The State also noted that the Commission failed to consider – much less invalidate – the State’s arguments, instead it “merely outlines in general the arguments contained in the State’s brief submitted on September 29, 2009.” 7. The State’s responsive arguments on the allegations of the Inter-American Commission that provide the foundation for its request for provisional measures, namely: a) Regarding the March 2008 and March 2009 alleged death threats received by CCJ members Ana María Rodríguez and Lina Paola Malagón, respectively, the State reported that it had ordered the commencement of an investigation in which a series of charges had been filed. The prosecution has incorporated these efforts into investigations Nos. 110016000099200800003 and 110016000049200904035, respectively. The State noted that Ms. Malagón did not accept the protective security measured offered her; b) Regarding alleged acts of harassment on the part of State agents directed at CCJ members on December 11, 2008, in Cartagena, it indicated that one such incident had been a simple misunderstanding, and in the case of another, “if the alleged irregular conduct the beneficiaries refer to is deemed to have in fact occurred, the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the legitimate work of the CCJ is respected and in no way obstructed”; c) Concerning the alleged illegal intelligence activities engaged in by the DAS, Colombia stressed that these acts were not State policy. On this point, the State has already expressed its rejection and condemnation and has proclaimed its interest in identifying, trying, and punishing those responsible for these alleged criminal acts. It added that it has recognized and supported on many occasions the work of various NGOs engaged in the defense and promotion of human rights, and that this is of great significance to strengthening democracy and the rule of law in Colombia; d) Concerning the argument presented by the Inter-American Commission, whereby it sought to link incidents of harassment with State intelligence activities, the State reported that it is unaware of any facts on which the Commission could be basing such an assertion, but that such hypotheses must be properly tested within the framework of a criminal investigation. It noted that the petitioners are a civil party to just such an investigation. The State furthermore remarked that the alleged illegal intelligence activities undertaken by DAS members are the subject of an investigation by the Inspector General as well as the Attorney General’s Office. In this regard, the State referred to a