confirmed that officials of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic approached Mr. Alvarado Favela to request his statement,10 which he also declined to grant. Regarding this, the President recalls that the Court, in its order dated November 26, 2010, found that the separate occasions on which the relatives had complained of feeling harassed or threatened have been related with the criminal complaint, investigation or interrogation by State authorities with regard to the alleged forced disappearance of their relatives.11 In this sense, the Court found that the progress of the investigations and the need to request information from the relatives for those investigations neither justified nor constituted sufficient reason for the apparent repeated visits of State authorities to the residences of the proposed beneficiaries, especially from authorities who the proposed beneficiaries had indicated as possibly responsible for the alleged disappearance of their relatives.12 The President reiterates those considerations and urges the State to take them into consideration when implementing actions toward determining the whereabouts of the beneficiaries who were presumably disappeared. 14. In addition, this Presidency highlights that the beneficiaries and their representatives are required to offer whatever cooperation is necessary to bring about the effective implementation of the measures.13 The State must take the pertinent steps for the provisional measures ordered in this Order to be planned and applied with the participation of the beneficiaries of those measures or their representatives in such a way that the measures are implemented diligently and effectively. However, the beneficiaries and their representatives also have the duty to cooperate in order to achieve adequate implementation of the security measures. In this sense, the President highlights the importance of the need for State authorities to establish clear and direct means of communication with the beneficiaries in order to establish the necessary trust for their adequate protection. 15. In addition, the President observes that as a result of the phone call received by beneficiary José Ángel Alvarado Favela on January 29, 2011, the members of the Alvarado family have left their places of residence and are in hiding due to fear of possible damage to their lives and personal integrity (supra Having Seen 7(d))d). Likewise, it takes into account that the relatives to whose benefit the broadening of these measures is requested at this time are the spouses or children of beneficiaries who are presumably currently in hiding as a result of the aforementioned threat. In this sense, this Presidency observes that on the occasion of the extension of these measures to certain relatives of the beneficiaries presumably disappeared, in its Order dated November 26, 2010, the Tribunal found that the situation of intimidation faced by certain relatives of the aforementioned disappeared beneficiaries was such that it extended to the other relatives, particularly because all the proposed beneficiaries shared a home with at least one of the relatives involved in the investigation, as well as with their corresponding and presumably disappeared relatives, from which it was deduced that those relatives could potentially be at risk. The President finds that the relative to whose favor the broadening of the measures is requested this time are facing the same 10 The State indicated all this in its comments. Nevertheless, the annexes to its comments include an official letter from the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic where it states that the Chihuahua Delegation of that institution "did not carry out any procedures on the day and time mentioned by the beneficiaries of the measures [January 24, 2011], particularly at the domicile of José Ángel Alvarado Favela, which would have resulted in its inclusion in the detailed report [related to this matter] that it keeps." 11 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 6, Considering 45. 12 Cf. Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 6, Considering 45. 13 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of September 2, 2010, Considering 20; Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation regarding Guatemala. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011, Considering 28, and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of March 1, 2011, Considering 18. 8