10 a) Regarding the protective or general security measures that the prospective beneficiaries would be willing to accept, the Commission indicated that the beneficiaries would not accept any measures incorporating standard personal security measures, owing to their contention that “there are indications that these security measures have been used as an information-gathering tool for State intelligence services on the activities, contacts, and movements of human rights defenders.” b) The Commission noted the CCJ’s contention that the basic measures they required from the State were that the then-President of the Republic, as well as “the highest officials in the Executive branch [should] cease their defamatory and harassing statements against human rights defenders and their legal defense activities, and they should make public declarations on both the legitimacy of these human rights activities and in condemnation of attacks and harassment against them.” The Commission went on to transcribe the measures requested by the beneficiaries in its letter of March 15, 2010, to wit: [a]mong the measures requested by the [CCJ] are: (i) to guarantee that the authorities conduct an investigation and prosecute those government employees who have made public statements [of condemnation] against the organization; (ii) to establish guidelines that guarantee the cessation of illegal monitoring activities on the part of State agents; (iii) to investigate incidents of threats and harassment against the organization and punish those responsible; (iv) to establish a special mechanism for investigations and trials when they implicate DAS activities; (v) to adopt measures that ensure that intelligence services show respect for human rights and are subject to both civil and judicial controls; (vi) to review the archives containing information on [CCJ] members and to remove information that is outside the scope of legitimate intelligence activities or that has been obtained in an illegal manner; and, (vii) to implement a purging mechanism for [these] intelligence archives. 21. The State’s letter of July 1, 2010 whereby it requested a continuance of twenty days in order to present the additional information the Tribunal requested concerning the present matter. The Secretariat’s letter of July 1, 2010 whereby, pursuant to instructions from the President, the State was given until July 19, 2010 to present the relevant information. 22. The State’s brief of July 30, 2010 whereby it submitted the information requested by the Court and indicated, inter alia, that: a) Ever since the legal creation of the Program for the Protection of Persons in Specific Populations under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice and the Interior, its operation has depended on those institutions constitutionally and legally created to assist it, namely the National Police and the Administrative Department of Security (DAS).5 Independently of which institution assumes the task of providing security measures, the responsibility to protect human rights defenders as well as social and community organizers will continue to belong to the State, in strict compliance with the Constitution, the laws, and relevant jurisprudence, as well as the human rights treaties to which Colombia is a signatory; 5 Regarding the process for dismantling the current regime of personal security protections in the DAS, the State reported that Article 1 of Decree No. 2271 of June 24, 2010 indicates that: “[t]he responsibilities facing the Program of Protection, under the auspices of the DAS, will gradually be reduced as the different stages of moving the case to the Ministry of Justice and the Interior are completed, which must be before December 31, 2010.”