4 guarantee the life and physical integrity of its members, particularly Islena Rey, a member of the organization‟s board.” The State emphasized that it “is unaware of any new problems regarding the operation of the protection scheme for the beneficiary [Islena Rey]; however, [...it] express[ed] its willingness to continue providing the necessary collaboration.” 8. Regarding the representatives‟ observation that the beneficiary Islena Rey had not been informed about the changes in the protection scheme made by the DAS, in June 2010 Colombia explained that Decree 1030 of 2010 established that the responsibilities of the DAS Protection Program “w[ould] be gradually reduced,” as the different stages of the process of transferring the respective protection schemes were completed. The State insisted that “it w[ould] never withdraw the protection schemes granted to the beneficiaries of provisional measures without prior notice.” It explained that it would not leave unprotected all those beneficiaries who, upon expiry of the DAS contract, had a protection scheme assigned to them by that entity, “because the State‟s obligation does not end and is not interrupted by that circumstance.” On that occasion, Colombia stated that, “the [protection] scheme for Islena Rey would not be withdrawn before June 30, 2010,” and that this had been explained to the beneficiary at a monitoring and coordination meeting held on May 26, 2010. 9. Regarding the protective measures implemented in favor of the beneficiary, Islena Rey, the representatives indicated that, on December 11, 2009, she had asked the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, the entity responsible for the Protection Program, to replace one of her escorts, because he had “acted in a manner contrary to the beneficiary‟s protection,” and she had therefore lost confidence in this escort. They explained that the said acts consisted in the “transmittal by the escort of personal information and information on the activities carried out by the [beneficiary] Islena Rey, […] at the express request of the Head of Protection of the Meta Branch of the DAS.” The representatives noted that, despite this request, the escort continued providing his services until March 2010. They underscored that this situation had occurred previously during implementation of the protective measures, and they had denounced repeatedly that escorts assigned to the protection of the beneficiary had carried out intelligence activities. They had asked the State to provide information in this regard, but to date had not received any answer. In addition, they stressed that the beneficiary had proposed persons of trust to replace the said escort, but the DAS had “needed five (5) months to determine that the individuals proposed […] did not meet the requirements to be hired as escorts.” The representatives pointed out that this was “the second time that obstacles had been placed to the hiring of an escort of trust alleging requirements that were not communicated opportunely.” They indicated that, in April 2010, the DAS had assigned a hired escort, which the beneficiary had accepted as a provisional measure until a person of trust could be assigned to her, which she repeatedly insisted on to the state authorities. In their observations of December 2010, the representatives confirmed that “since October 15, 2010,” the protection scheme for the beneficiary Islena Rey has been complete once again and, currently, “all the escorts […] satisfy the requirement of trust”; nevertheless, they regretted that 10 months had elapsed from the time the change in escort was requested until the State complied with this obligation, “undertaking to ensure the satisfactory functioning of the physical protection scheme and, consequently, [to the protection] of the life and integrity of the [beneficiary].” They underlined that, during the time the beneficiary‟s protection scheme was incomplete, the Ministry of the Interior and Justice and the DAS had “provided numerous different answers” about the competence to define the requirements for contracting out the escorts. 10. Regarding the armored vehicle that forms part of the beneficiary‟s security scheme, the representatives mentioned that it had needed many repairs during 2010 and that, each time, “the vehicle has been replaced by a similar one.” However, they emphasized the