Mr. Galdámez returned to his house at 11:30 p.m., accompanied by one of his sons. Three people approached and shot at them several times. Apparently, Mr. Galdámez was armed and able to “repel the attack.” 18. The State reported that on August 20 and September 24, 2010, it held meetings with Mr. José Luís Galdámez Álvarez with the purpose of reaching an agreement on the precautionary measures and their implementation. It indicated that the beneficiary attended these meetings with attorneys from a number of human rights organizations, a situation which the State found to be “confusing,” as it does not know who the real representatives of the beneficiary are. It stated that this ambiguity makes police work more difficult, as it is not clear whom the police has to contact to carry out monitoring activities (supra Having Seen 6 a) and b)). Nonetheless, the State indicated that an agreement was reached with Mr. Galdámez Álvarez regarding the car or motorcycle patrol at his work and home, as well as the telephone communication with a police contact, with records showing that the beneficiary had to contact that phone number in order to provide the police with his home and/or work address and schedule. According to the State, the beneficiary did not provide this information. The State also highlighted that “the Secretariat of Security, aware of the Commission’s mandate […] and of the commitment undertaken with the beneficiary, as well as of the imminent risk that exists regarding the lives and personal integrity of him and his family” agreed to amplify the daily patrols to include his children and partner. Likewise, it indicated that in order to achieve effective results, it prepared a logbook for recording the visits or news. According to the State, the beneficiaries have not agreed to sign the logbook until they have been granted personal and permanent security. The State finds this position to be contradictory, since the beneficiary rejected personal and permanent police officers as his guards, which is one of the ways that the National Police grants this kind of protection (supra Having Seen 6. c). Likewise, the State reported that it had summoned the beneficiary and his representatives for a meeting on December 29, 2010, but they did not attend (supra Having Seen 8). 19. For their part, the representatives indicated that neither Mr. Galdámez nor his representatives were notified of the meeting to be held on December 29, 2010, by the State, and that therefore they are not obstructing the implementation of the security measures to their benefit. However, they indicated that on 19 January 2011, a meeting was held in order to once again reach an agreement on the protective measures to the benefit of Mr. Galdámez and his family. The representatives stated that several of these measures are being executed, such as the police surveillance at Mr. Galdámez’s home and the patrols in the morning. Nevertheless, the representatives indicated that the night patrols are only being carried out sporadically (supra Having Seen 9). The State also mentioned the meeting on January 19, 2011 (supra Having Seen 10). 20. From the information provided by the parties, this Tribunal observes that between July 24, 2009 - the date on which the Commission adopted the precautionary measures to the benefit of Mr. José Luís Galdámez Álvarez - and August 20, 2010 - the date on which Honduras indicated that one of the meetings to reach an agreement regarding the precautionary measures was held with the beneficiary - the State did not undertake any action to protect Mr. Galdámez Álvarez and his immediate family. The Court highlights that since the adoption of the protective measures granted by the Commission, Mr. Galdámez and some members of his family have suffered threats, intimidation, and an attack with firearms. 21. Nevertheless, the Court notes that after notice of the Order of the President of December 23, 2010, was served (supra Having Seen 7), Mr. Galdámez and his 13