5 series of ongoing criminal investigations and asserted that the relevant authorities are carrying out these investigations in a serious and impartial manner; e) That it has adopted various legislative and administrative measures with the aim of guaranteeing the ultimate cessation of the alleged illegal intelligence activities on the part of DAS members. The State also stressed that it regards intelligence services as a legitimate and necessary activity in order to guarantee security and domestic order in a “Social State of Laws” (in Spanish, “Estado Social de Derecho”), and that the State must in any case engage in intelligence activities only in accordance with strict rules and regulations that find support in the State’s policy of strictly observing human rights protections, and f) Finally, concerning the State’s own offer of protective measures for the life and physical integrity of the CCJ members, the State indicated that the Ministry of the Justice and the Interior and the National Police, respectively, maintained their offer of material measures of protection and preventive security for the benefit of CCJ members, but the representatives of the CCJ had not accepted. While the representatives have repeatedly requested the adoption of policy or political measures and not material ones, the State regards material measures as necessary to reduce the risk to the lives and personal safety of the beneficiaries. The State again stressed its willingness to exhaust all efforts in safeguarding the lives and physical integrity of the CCJ members. 8. The State’s conclusions whereby it moved that the Court deny the request for provisional measures. In that regard, the State indicated that: a) the request for provisional measures lacked justification because the situation in question did not meet the requirements established in Article 63(2) of the Convention; b) it noted an absence of an analysis or appraisal of the information and arguments the State presented to the Inter-American Commission in the proceedings before it, in particular with the Commission failing to consider the fact that on September 29, 2009 the State submitted a brief containing precise and comprehensive information negating the existence of an urgent threat of risk vis-à-vis the non-recurrence guarantees it had adopted; c) the legislative, criminal, disciplinary, and political measures adopted, as well as the strengthening of existing participatory avenues for human rights defenders so that the acts giving rise to the present petition do not recur; and d) the State questioned the need to award provisional members in the present case, bearing in mind the negative disposition of the CCJ members in accepting material measures of protection; these same measures the State regards as fundamental in responding to instances of extreme gravity and urgency, lest they end in irreparable injury. 9. The communication of the Secretariat of November 23, 2009 whereby it requested that the Inter-American Commission specify the protective measures it was requesting; how these measures were different from those offered by the State; the manner in which they were to be implemented; whether the CCJ had rejected these measures; and, if so, the reason for such rejection. Conversely, the Secretariat requested that the State: a) provide information on the measures it has offered or would be willing to offer the beneficiaries and the State agency that would be responsible for their implementation, and b) the State’s willingness to implement these measures in cooperation with CCJ members. 10. The State’s brief of December 3, 2009 whereby it responded to the Secretariat’s communication of November 23, 2009 and submitted the following information: