22, 2010[,] [telling the State to] adopt all necessary and effective measures to
guarantee [my] life and personal integrity as a beneficiary, along with that of
[my] family”;
c) Mr. Galdámez and his representatives “agreed to repeat the request for funding to
hiring personal security,” and while “that petition was being resolved,” they
requested that the provisional measures be implemented as follows: “The
appointment of a police official with a fixed shift from 06:00 to 22:00, seven days
a week at his home and the carrying out of the patrols agreeded upon previously,
[…] which would be daily between 6:00 am and 8:00 am; 12:00 to 2:30; and 7
p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; [and the establishment] of a direct telephone line connected to
the Chief of Police District 1-3 […], with the number […] and the Chief of Police
District 1-2 […] with the number […], so that the beneficiary and his immediate
family may receive assistance in case of emergency or whenever [the
beneficiaries deem] it necessary;
d) The National Police stated that “it accepted the beneficiary’s requests and
committed itself to granting that protection in the manner indicated.” In order to
“leave a record” showing that they would effectively and immediately fulfill
everything that was agreed upon, two members of the National Police went to
“the beneficiary’s house with the purpose of improving the protective mechanism
agreed upon” and committed themselves to “delivering a photostatic copy of the
roles containing the names of those who are going to carry out the police service
[…] agreed upon”;
e) “Monthly […] meetings shall be held, as agreed upon initially, in order to have an
effective result regarding the implementation of provisional measures. To that
effect, [an agent from the Human Rights Unit of the Secretariat of Security and an
agent from the National Office of Criminal Investigation] will be in charge of
monitoring and following this case”; and
f) An agent from the National Office of Criminal Investigation was committed to
“prioritizing the investigation of the facts that gave rise to the provisional
measures.”
11.
The communication of February 18, 2011, with which the Inter-American
Commission submitted its comments on the State's report of January 10, 2011 (supra
Having Seen 8), and to the State's brief of February 9, 2011 (supra Having Seen 11).
The Inter-American Commission indicated that:
a) “It takes note of the coordination and consensus that exists between the
representatives […] and the State toward the effective implementation of the
measures of protection requested by the Commission starting on July 24, 2009.”
b) “The State's report does not detail the results allegedly obtained through the
measures carried out in the investigations launched, nor how those measures
have moved the investigations forward.”
c) “The submission of information on all of the measures that continue to be adopted
to prevent the recurrence of new threats against the life and integrity of the
beneficiaries […] remains pending.”
9