7 not provide information supporting the present existence of those events. The State argued that the Commission cannot show that the protection offered to the beneficiaries in a repeated fashion by various state agencies has been incapable of meeting the task. The State has not had the opportunity to put any sort of measures in place given the beneficiaries’ disinclination to accept them. The State further added that, on the subject of precautionary measures, the fact that these “must be carried out in cooperation with the beneficiaries leads to a situation that could be interpreted as a negation of the State’s own protective measures.” In closing, the State argued that the request for provisional measures in favor of the members of the CCJ should be rejected. 15. The communication of the Secretariat of February 1, 2010 whereby, pursuant to instructions from the Plenary of the Court (hereinafter the “Plenary”), it requested that the State submit additional information. The Tribunal also requested that the State submit copies of Decrees No. 2816 and No. 3600, and report on the specific measures that the Human Rights Protection Program for the Ministry of Justice and the Interior intended to immediately and effectively provide to the CCJ members. In relation to Decree No. 3600, which provides a replacement mechanism for the storage of intelligence files, the Secretariat requested that the State indicate the particulars of this new storage process. It also requested that the State remit a copy of the DAS documents dealing with human rights and human rights policy that the State mentioned in its observations of January 21, 2010. The Secretariat furthermore requested that the Commission report on the threats and harassment that members of the CCJ have received over the last six months, specifying the place, date, and documentation corresponding to each. Likewise, the Commission was to report on specific actions that it believed the State should employ in providing provisional measures in favor of the CCJ members. 16. The State’s brief of March 23, 2010 whereby it submitted the information solicited by the Court. Therein, the State submitted copies of Decree No. 2818 of August 22, 2006; Decree No. 3170 of 2007, which amended Decree No. 2816; Public Law 1288 of March 5, 2009; and, Decree No. 3600 of September 21, 2009, which acts as a check on Public Law 1288. The State also submitted copies of the relevant DAS documents on human rights: i) Directive OPLA 022 of December 24, 2009; ii) Directive OPLA 021 of December 24, 2009; iii) Directive OPLA 013 of May 13, 2009; iv) Directive OPLA 016 of November 28, 2009; v) Directive OPLA 005 of March 3, 2010 “Application and Fulfillment Memorandum 07 of December 1, 2009 – Special Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights”; vi) Directive OPLA 025 of September 3, 2009”; and, vii) Directive OPLA 007 of January 10, 2007.” The State indicated that the DAS’s policy document concerning human rights (“DAS Human Rights Guide”) will be officially published on April 14, 2010. Additionally, the State made reference to the following factors: a) In relation to the specific measures that could be provided to the CCJ members in an immediate and effective fashion, pursuant to Article 24 of Decree No. 2816 of 2006, such actions would have to take place through an “emergency procedure.” Decree No. 2816 provides a catalog of measures that are classified according to the circumstances that characterize the beneficiaries’ particular situation. The classification follows two orders: i) preventive measures that include self-protection and self-security, National Police patrols, and instructional sessions on preventive measures; and ii) protective measures that can be further divided into hard and soft measures