3 d) it reiterated to the authorities hearing the case the need to receive prompt information about the progress of the investigation “which allows establishing whether there are risk factors which support the continuance or discontinuance of the protection measures afforded to” Mr. Nieto-Palma; e) “during the period over which protection has been afforded to [Mr.] Nieto-Palma, on several occasions he refused outright to cooperate with the authorities in charge of investigating the accusations which allegedly put at risk his physical integrity and that of his next of kin, claiming that the procedures used were not clear;” f) on August 5, 2005 the representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor by means of a telephone communication summoned Carlos NietoPalma to appear on August 22, 2005 so that through an official photogram steps be taken to identify those possibly responsible for the facts denounced. It informed that Mr. Nieto-Palma stated that “he would not appear in response to the summons, as it had not been served in writing.” Due to the foregoing, on August 26, 2005 the Office of the Public Prosecutor issued a summons for September 2, 2005. Notwithstanding, Carlos Nieto-Palma did not appear in response to this summons either, as he was away on vacation; g) on November 4, 2005 Carlos Nieto-Palma appeared at the Office of the Public Prosecutor in order to supplement his statement of July 22, 2005, so that said office might establish the relevancy of holding an identity parade. The beneficiary did not tender any evidence which might support ordering that the above-mentioned measure be held; h) as to the investigation into the facts denounced, on November 24, 2005 a request was submitted to the competent Controlling Court so that the case be dismissed, as “even though all relevant and necessary steps have been taken to resolve the case regarding the facts denounced by [Mr.] Nieto-Palma, from the investigation proceedings started by the Office of the Public Prosecutor no valid procedural relation has been established among the parties to the case which […] allows establishing an actual and specific bearing on the events occurred […],” i) the officials assigned to the Metropolitan Police of El Hatillo District Police Station have complied with the protection measures they were in charge of, which consisted of daily visits around the house of Carlos Nieto-Palma, and j) it requested the Court “to discontinue the provisional measures adopted in behalf of [Carlos Nieto-Palma, as] to date the State has fully complied therewith[,] and as, furthermore, the events and circumstances which gave rise to the adoption of such measures have already ceased.” 4. The brief submitted by the representative of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the representative”) on December 8, 2004, whereby he argued, inter alia, that the State “has not complied with the measures ordered by the Court.” He pointed out that “the police authorities allegedly responsible for [the] protection of [Carlos Nieto-Palma] have merely visited his house every other day, and through the intercom, asked how he is.” He further pointed out that in the case of the Metropolitan Police, “they have merely forwarded a weekly report to the criminal court hearing the case; on the contrary, the local Police of El Hatillo Municipal District […]