3. Require the State to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the provisional measures adopted in conformity with th[at] decision every two months, starting on January 10, 2011. 4. Request the representatives of the beneficiaries of the present measures and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their observations within four and six weeks, respectively, as of the dates on which notice of the reports of the State indicated in the previous operative paragraph is served. […] 8. that: The brief of January 10, 2011, and its appendices, in which the State indicated a) It had called an urgent meeting to be held on December 29, 2010, in which several members of the Human Rights Unit of the Secretariat of Security and a Human Rights Prosecutor were to attend along with the beneficiary and his representatives, “with the purpose of monitoring the precautionary measures ordered by the Inter-American Commission[…].” “Unfortunately, the beneficiary and his representatives did not attend the meeting even though they were duly summoned by the Special Public Prosecutor of Human Rights.” Regarding this, the State sent the Court an “official registry of failure to appear;” b) “It reiterates its commitment to continuing with the measures of protection ordered for the beneficiary and his family, but his and his representatives' failure to appear obstructs the work carried out by the National Police in the fulfillment of the mandate of the IACHR.” Likewise, it indicated that the beneficiary “gives the impression that he has no interest whatsoever in receiving the Police protection requested by [the] Tribunal”; c) The investigation of the attack suffered by the beneficiary on September 14, 2010, has been a “priority,” and one of the objectives of the meeting of December 29, 2010, was to “coordinate the execution of several investigation proceedings with the beneficiary, who as a victim is the principal source of the investigation.” It also presented a document indicating the “investigations carried out;” d) “It reiterates what was stated in the note sent to the Court on 15 December 2010, and manifests that it is still fulfilling the precautionary measures implemented for the beneficiary and his family;” and e) It will again call a meeting with the beneficiary and his representatives “in order to coordinate the provisional measures that will be applied to safeguard the lives and physical integrity of he and those in his immediate family.” 9. The brief of February 7, 2011, and the appendix received on February 8, 2011, in which the representatives of the beneficiaries presented their observations to the State report of January 10, 2011 (supra Having Seen 8). The representatives indicated the following: a) “Mr. Galdámez was never called for the […] meeting [… of December 29. 2010;] neither were his representatives, […] since they were on vacation” on that date, so they did not receive any notification; 7