6 a) Regarding point a), the State reported that the proposal of protective measures for the beneficiaries consisted in services provided by the Human Rights Protection Program for the Ministry of Justice and the Interior, the Protection and Assistance to Victims and Witnesses Program in the Attorney General’s Office, and other efforts on the part of the National Police. b) Regarding point b), the State provided information as to its various offers of protection to the CCJ as well as the steps it has taken to open the lines of communication between itself and the beneficiaries so that they might better voice their requests. In this sense, the State again emphasized its commitment to guaranteeing the lives and personal safety of the beneficiaries and its willingness to employ a broad array of means and capabilities to carry out that objective. 11. The brief of the Inter-American Commission of December 4, 2009 in response to the Secretariat’s communication of November 23, 2009 in which it indicated that in the context of securing precautionary measures the State and the potential beneficiaries debated “what would be the most appropriate security measures to adopt in a situation like the one described in the request for provisional measures. The State offered personal protection plans from the relevant security entities, while the potential beneficiaries responded with a series of arguments that essentially took issue with the inefficacy of taking such measures in light of the continuing remarks of the President of the Republic and other senior state officials,” as well as the general lack of access to information detailing the intelligence operations undertaken either by the State or at its encouragement. Any protective measure must be based on the “circumstances, needs, and preferences of the beneficiaries.” The Commission added that in order for a protective mechanism to achieve the desired effect, the State retains the obligation to take steps necessary to identify and eradicate the source of the risk, especially considering the lack of confidence that the CCJ members have shown as to the State’s ability to protect them. The Commission argued that, were they to be granted, the pending provisional measures must include an unequivocal call that the State desist from engaging in any act that could endanger the beneficiaries, including the immediate cessation of all intelligence activities concerning them, and that it provide access to the information that has been collected and revealed by way of these activities. Additionally, the Commission opined that the measures in question should permit certain flexibility so that the parties may define for themselves the particulars of implementation. 12. The communication of the Secretariat of December 17, 2009 whereby it informed the Inter-American Commission and the State that they had until January 20, 2010 in order to present their relevant observations on the briefs each other had submitted. 13. The Commission’s brief of January 20, 2010 whereby it reiterated its remarks of December 4, 2009 and indicated that the situations previously described (supra Having seen 2, 3) had placed the potential beneficiaries in a position of great risk and vulnerability, providing sufficient elements to show prima facie that the principle objective continued to be the immediate eradication of the source of the risk. 14. The State’s brief of January 20, 2010 whereby it indicated that in the Commission’s brief the key points of the request are not clarified and do not fulfill the necessary procedural requirements for the adoption of provisional measures. The InterAmerican Commission bases its arguments on events that occurred in the past and does