9 10. The communication of June 7, 2010, and its annexes, whereby the InterAmerican Commission presented the information requested in the Secretariat’s letter of May 24, 2010 (supra Having Seen 8). In this communication, the Inter-American Commission indicated that: a) “[T]he ICJP’s written submission dated May 29, 2010 [that was attached as an annex] was the focus of much consideration; the ICJP in that note gave a detailed response to the questions posed by the Court.” The Commission “reiterate[d] what it had already said in its request for provisional measures, as well as in its May 4, 2010 letter (supra Having Seen 6),” and that “without detriment to the foregoing” the Commission only “wished to highlight certain points”; b) According to information provided by the ICJP, they maintain “permanent teams in the field (Bajo Atrato, Putumayo, Buenaventura, Meta and Cauca),” as well as teams charged with: “legal, psycho-social, and communications issues, [as well as] administration and coordination with the headquarters in Bogotá,” and that these teams accompany those in the field on a permanent basis. Specifically, the Commission indicated that “in all, 56 individuals make up the [ICJP].” To that effect, the Commission attached a list with the names and the “teams” to which each individual belongs; c) The atmosphere of threats and surveillance that afflicts the organization has followed it to its headquarters in Bogotá, which makes it foreseeable that “an attack against its headquarters or members in that city [could be carried out].” The legal and coordination teams “are pressing forward with complaints and demands at the national and international levels,” and they “are the embodiment of the organization’s work.” The complaints launched by the ICJP have “broken a chain of persecution and harassment against its members that has culminated in kidnappings, planned disappearances, threats against life and limb, as well as smear and stigmatization campaigns.” The “[ICJP’s] composition and manner of work, including the task of being present in conflict zones, along with the stigma the group has of being opposed to the government and the paramilitaries, makes it such that they find themselves in a high-risk situation.” On some occasions, “threats have been directed at particular members of the organization, such as Danilo Rueda, Abilio Peña, Fr. Alberto, and Yimy Jansasoy [sic], as well as against team members from Bajo Atrato, Debeiba, Naya, and Putumayo.” In this way, “if indeed some ICJP members face extraordinary risks, the rest of the members also face an elevated risk themselves.” The “stigmatization campaign, the threats, the invasive intelligence activities spearheaded by the DAS, the public attacks by members of the State […] [, and] plots against the organization,” the majority of the time are directed “against the [ICJP] as an organizational whole.” The investigations related to the facts that gave rise to the present request for precautionary measures “are not moving forward,” all the while “the protection schemes have not been effectively implemented.” d) Finally, it referred to the “geographical context in which the members of the [ICJP] do their work, the political context as far as the accusations against them are concerned, to the harassment context where surveillance and DAS reports on ICJP actions are concerned, [and to] their alleged