configuration, for the sum of $115,746.00 [(one hundred and fifteen thousand, seven hundred and forty-six Mexican pesos)], which were installed in the […] home of the petitioners. In addition, [the petitioners] were granted the precautionary measure of accompaniment by bodyguards. According to the State “eight officers of the Secretariat for Citizen Security and Protection of the [s]tate of Chiapas […] were in charge of security.” In response to the Commission’s observation that on October 17, 2011, a member of the guard had resigned and that to date had not been replaced, the State pointed out that on November 15, 2011, a substitute was appointed. Finally, the State reported that, as agreed at the meeting of March 5, 2010, another precautionary measure was granted for “the installation of a closed circuit monitoring system at the home of the [petitioners].” 9. Likewise, the State reported that with “the prior agreement of the petitioners and their representatives, on December 1, [2011], a follow-up meeting was held regarding the implementation of the […] precautionary measures” granted by the Commission and, in an effort to make these more effective and guarantee [the] security and protection,” it was agreed that the necessary investigations would be carried out to ascertain what had occurred, relying on Mrs. Martínez Martínez’s cooperation as essential assistance. Among other the issues discussed were the following: a) “a proposal for an inter-institutional mechanism that would increase the beneficiaries’ level of confidence so that they would cooperate” in the investigations; b) the State “offered the beneficiaries the services provided by the Special Prosecutor for Assistance to Victims of Crime (hereinafter “PROVICTIMA”), which provides legal assistance and psychological counseling, with an emphasis on protection for minors […].” This offer was not accepted by the petitioners; however, in consideration of PROVICTIMA’s work, they said that although at present they are not interested, it is an offer that they might consider later on,” and c) the State and the representatives agreed that at the next meeting “consensus […] would be reached on a preliminary protocol for implementing the measure requiring bodyguards, which will be prepared by the Secretariat for Citizen Security and Protection of Chiapas.” 10. In addition, according to information submitted by the State, the “beneficiaries” were provided with two emergency numbers of the Federal Police in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas. Moreover, the “beneficiaries” told “the authorities that the closed circuit monitoring system installed in their home by FEAPONGDDH is disconnected because it is broken, given that the hard drive does not record and the resolution is poor,” and they requested another closed circuit camera. In this regard, the State pointed out that the “director of FEAPONGDDH requested the beneficiaries’ cooperation in authorizing access for a [t]technician to inspect the monitoring system and, if necessary, provide permanent maintenance, but the beneficiaries said that they would uninstall the equipment and hand it over to the Prosecutor for inspection.” As to a new camera for the monitoring system, the State noted that “since the beneficiary Adolfo Guzmán no longer works with the organization ENLACE, where a camera was installed, this [camera] can be installed at the home of the beneficiary [indicating] that he will inform the organization of this matter, so that an assessment can be made.” Finally, the representatives noted that “there is no street lighting around the home of the beneficiary, and requested reflectors for the property.” In this regard, the State indicated that “the Secretariat of the Government of Chiapas will make the necessary arrangements with the City Council of San Cristóbal de Las Casas to restore the street lighting. 11. The State asserted that the Commission’s argument that “the Government of the [s]tate of Chiapas has not been willing to investigate its officials” lacks substance, given that several investigations regarding the events have been carried out, in which its own officials are implicated as possible perpetrators. The State concluded that “it does not share the C[ommission’s] view that the beneficiaries of the precautionary measures face a higher 8