9 de Colombia”), in which he was called to give testimony. This alone constitutes an increased risk, above all for Gustavo Gallón Giraldo; d) Finally, “CCJ members have been the target of serious accusation on the part of Colombian government agents, that [were] followed by threats and harassment. In addition to the foregoing, it is necessary to consider the seriousness of the intelligence work undertaken by the State to persecute and harass human rights defenders, including the potential beneficiaries. There has also been a general lack of information and of a clear explanation as to the purpose of these activities. What’s more, the demands of several ongoing cases have the effect of converting the CCJ members into the targets of further threats and harassment, as well as enhancing the level of danger they face. These circumstances not only have placed the CCJ members in a position of risk and vulnerability, but also constitute sufficient elements tending to show prima facie that the appropriate measure to be adopted in this case is the immediate eradication of the source of the risk.” 18. The Secretariat’s letter of May 31, 2010 whereby, pursuant to instructions from the Plenary, it requested that the Commission submit additional information before June 28, 2010. The Tribunal asked that the Commission include in its brief: a) the protective measures that the prospective beneficiaries would be willing to accept at that particular moment; b) whether there were any other measures to be solicited in addition to protective measures; and, c) its description of what avenues of cooperation the potential beneficiaries would be willing to take to coordinate planning and implementation of the measures with the State. The Court also asked the State to indicate: a) which state officials or organs would be in charge of implementing the protective measures, and b) what the available mechanisms are to facilitate the beneficiaries’ participation in the planning and implementation of the protective measures so that they might stay informed as to progress with compliance. 19. The brief of the Inter-American Commission of June 23, 2010 whereby it submitted information offered by the CCJ on the situation of risk and imminent harm The Commission regarded the potential beneficiaries’ that its members face.4 information as confirming yet again the factual basis for the request for provisional measures. As with previous communications, the facts indicate that the members of the CCJ remain in a situation that subjects them to a risk of imminent harm. The Commission thus reiterated its request to the Court that it adopt provisional measures in the present case. 20. The brief of the Inter-American Commission of June 29, 2010 whereby it repeated its earlier points and went on to indicate, inter alia, that: 4 In this regard, the representatives of the CCJ indicated that, together with the Inter-Ecclesial Commission on Justice and Peace (ICJP), they are moving forward with measures before international human rights organizations to safeguard the rights of the communities of Curvaradó and Jiguamandó. They added that the members of the ICJP were allegedly the target of scare tactics by way of e-mail on April 26, 2010 and in a web-page publication on April 27, 2010. In both instances, accusations of criminal activity were hurled against both the ICJP and the CCJ, despite the ICJP’s having already filed a public complaint to the contrary. Thus, the CCJ representatives concluded that the e-mail, the internet publication, and the threats serve to demonstrate “the context of persistent stigmatization against human rights defenders that attempts to present [their] legitimate defense work as an aggressive and deleterious act, and treating it as if it constituted a legal war against the State.”