implementation of agreements between the parties and that the State “is responding to the requests of [the representatives],” waiting “for the limitations posed to be overcome” regarding those measures for which no agreements have been reached. It concluded that the “procederes carried out by the [State] can be of use, but do not constitute the most substantive or specific measures required for the effective protection of the beneficiaries.” 21. In regard to the measures of protection adopted to date, first, the Court values that State provided equipment for the protection of the beneficiaries at their home, as well as the provision of three phones requested for use by the beneficiaries and the sister of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, and its willingness to replace the stolen phone. Nevertheless, the Court does not have sufficient information on the progress made regarding the delivery of the stolen phone and the change of number requested by the representatives, to which it asks the State to submit up to date information on this point. 22. As for the satellite phone to be installed in the home of the parents of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, the Court appreciates the willingness of the State to provide this measure in order for the beneficiary to monitor the situation of her family in the community where they reside, as requested by the representatives, notwithstanding that it notes that the family members of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú are not beneficiaries of the provisional measures, to which the Court is not able to analyze the measure (supra Considering clause 12). 23. For the measures of protection related to the proposal made by Peace Brigades in its report, the Court will refer, first, to those which have already been implemented by agreement between the parties, second, to those where there has been an agreement by the parties but have not yet been implemented, third, to the measures where there is no agreement between the parties, and finally, to the specific measures that, although requested, are not related to the provisional measures. 24. On the first point, the Court notes that the representatives and the State have come to an agreement and have implemented the following measures of protection, in addition to the those regarding the delivery of the radio equipment and the protection of the home: a) delivery of security infrastructure for the home of the beneficiaries (supra Considering clause 21); b) the provision of the contact information of a public employee to the beneficiaries of the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior; c) delivery of a “guarantee letter” to the beneficiaries, signed by the head of the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights, which establishes the special situation of protection of the beneficiaries, and which allows for an immediate response of any security body if they encounter risk; d) delivery of a “guarantee letter,” signed by the head of the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights, addressed to the authorities at a federal, state, and municipal level, with a message of support recognizing the responsibility of the State to protect the integrity of the beneficiaries, and e) efforts to assure the participation of the beneficiary in a “Workshop on Stalking Detection and Response Actions to any harassment” and a “Course on Self Defense.” The Court appreciates the steps taken by Mexico to reach a compromise with the representatives that has allowed for the implementation of these measures and requests that the State submit an update on the progress of the measure referred to in paragraph e) of this paragraph. 25. Second, the Court notes from that reported by the parties that there are certain measures of protection where there is no apparent controversy between the parties, 8