6 he stated that the information is contradictory between that stated by the representative and the State itself. In reference to the death of Mr. Dairo Torres, the State informed that “an investigation is being carried out in the Ninety-Seventh Prosecution of the Section of Apartadó.” Regarding the representative’s statements on the threats suffered by Mr. Rodrigo Rodríguez, the State indicated that despite the request of protection measures for said person, up to this date they have not been able to locate him. According to the State, the beneficiary concluded that, “it was not sensible to receive protection from the National Police Force, since one of the principles of the mentioned Community was the non-participation of any armed actor […] because it put […] the inhabitants at risk.” Regarding the reports on the alleged links of illegal armed groups with members of the National Police, the State reiterated that “the police officers assigned to San José de Apartadó and the urban center of the municipality of Apartadó, do not have ties with any emerging group of paramilitaries or similar.” In this sense he stated that, “there is no direct or specific accusation but instead only general accusations that do not specify names or acts.” On the other hand, the State has informed of the realization of meetings and visits to the Peace Community in order to “check the security measures” implemented, to which the beneficiaries or their representative allegedly did not assist. In this sense the State indicated that “the Police has tried to reach the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, in company of institutions such as the Attorney General’s Office, Ombudsman, Social Action, the Office of the Municipal Mayor, and up to this date it has not been possible to access any type communication that allows them to know the situation in which people live within the settlement of La Holandita, since they do not accept any help that may come for state institutions. On the contrary, any type of rapprochement is considered by them as actions that threaten the security of the Peace Community […].” 15. That the Inter-American Commission stated (supra Having Seen Paragraph 5), inter alia, in view of the information provided by the representative, its concern regarding the recent facts that have affected the beneficiaries and the “situation in the area where they live […] and its impact on society in general, given the presence of armed actors that are part of the guerrilla and paramilitaries, as well as the frequent reports of acts of collaboration and consent of members of the National Police Force with armed groups that are on the fringe of the law.” During the public hearing celebrated (supra Having Seen paragraph 7) the Inter-American Commission also informed the Tribunal of the judgment issued by the Constitutional Court of Colombia on December 3, 2007, with regard to the matters object of these provisional measures (infra Considering Clauses number 19 and 24). 16. That in International Human Rights Law provisional measures not only have a precautionary nature, in the sense that they conserve a legal situation, but mostly protective since they protect human rights, in the sense that they seek to avoid irreparable damages to people. As long as they reunite the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and prevention of irreparable damages to people, the provisional measures become a true legal guarantee of a preventive nature.7 7 Cfr., inter alia, Matter of Eloísa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of September 22, 2005, Considering Clause number five; Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión – RCTV). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, Considering Clause number five, and Matter of the Urso Blanco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2005, Considering Clause number four.