171. Finally, although the evidence does not indicate the specific period of time that they remained in Mexico, it is clear that B.A., her mother C.A., and her children L.A. and N.A., were in that country to initiate and follow up on the paperwork for their applications for asylum, and that on July 6, 2005, they obtained “non-immigrant refugee status”, granting them permission to remain in that country. Therefore, it is evident that they remained in Mexico for a period of time. Also, from the body of evidence it is clear that, by February 2006, C.A., B.A. and her children L.A. and N.A., had returned to the Municipality of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, where they rented a house. In other words, after leaving the village of Cruce de la Esperanza on December 31, 2004, they did not return to their usual place of residence (supra paras. 97 and 99). 172. Consequently, the Court considers that, after Mr. A.A.’s death, the State did not provide adequate measures of protection to ensure that the aforementioned members of family A would not be forced to move within Guatemala or to Mexico. 173. The Commission and the representatives alleged the lack of adequate and effective protection measures following the nine days of prayers held for Mr. A.A. In particular, the Commission argued that in 2008, the State offered to initiate an application for the protection of the relatives, that is, more than three years after Mr. A.A.’s death. For its part, the State held that the alleged victims refused to receive the protection offered them, without indicating what type of measures it had offered (supra para. 164). 174. During the public hearing, B.A. explained that it was “through COPREDEH [that] she was offered a police officer,” and although she could not recall the exact dates, it was “around 2007, 2008, because of the constant threats, I was offered security [measures consisting of] sending me a […] police officer whom I didn’t know, and I had to provide him with a place to sleep, food and wherever I went I had to pay for his fares. So, how could I accept this? In the first place, not knowing who the police officer was, because it was not someone permanent but one who keeps changing. In the second place, I myself barely had enough [money] to rent a room or two rooms – where was this person going to sleep?” 284 For its part, the State indicated that it “offered the presumed victim measures of protection and free security, which she rejected, arguing that she did not trust the State’s security and considered that her life would be in even greater danger.” It added that, “we didn’t even manage to do the risk analysis, because she refused to receive protection; therefore, she cannot say that she was not offered an agent for her protection, since she could possibly have been provided with another measure of protection such as perimeter security.” It further argued that B.A. failed in her duty to tell the truth before the Court, “given that the risk assessment to provide security and protection measures is a task carried out by the Individual Protection and Security Division of the National Civil Police, and is not a function of COPREDEH […], therefore, it […] could not have indicated which measures of protection they were going to provide, and much less, that these would have a financial cost.” Again, the State did not specify the measures offered, their details or how they would be implemented. Finally, it held that [B.A.] “could also [have] requested protection under the Law for the Protection of Procedural Subjects and Persons Connected with the Administration of Criminal Justice.” 175. In this regard, the file shows that, during the proceeding before the Inter-American Commission, the State, through the Presidential Commission on Human Rights (COPREDEH), explained in a brief dated October 2, 2006, that B.A. had not asked to join the Witness Protection Program, and that it was feasible for the Interior Ministry to provide provisional protection in coordination with the Defenders’ Unit of COPREDEH, in case “the threats reported by the petitioner continue,” provided that the petitioner agreed and cooperated. 285 Subsequently, from 2008, and on four different occasions, Guatemala offered to request personal security and protection measures for Mrs. B.A., whenever she considered it appropriate, which were not accepted by her because she felt it could put her life at greater risk. 286 For their part, the representatives submitted four briefs in response to the offer made by the State. From the information available in these briefs, it is 284 2014. 285 401). Cf. Statement rendered by B.A. before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, Cf. Brief of October 2, 2006 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, pages 400 and 286 Cf. Brief of June 23, 2009 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, page 298); Brief of March 27, 2009 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, page 331); Brief of April 14, 2009 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, pages 320 and 321), and Brief of June 17, 2011 (File of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, page 100). 54