5 absence of a clear procedure to ensure her security when the vehicle experienced mechanical failures, and also for the movements of the beneficiary, who, at times, has had to risk travelling around rural areas without her vehicle.6 In their observations of February 16, 2011, the representatives indicated that the delivery of vouchers for smaller amounts (supra sixth considering paragraph) had been a “satisfactory” response by the State to one of the concerns of the beneficiary Islena Rey as regards the provision of fuel for the vehicle that forms part of her protection scheme. However, they underscored that they have not received an answer from the State regarding the beneficiary‟s remarks at the meeting held with the state authorities on October 7, 2010, when she expressed her concern with regard to the petrol station with which this supply of fuel had been contracted, because the fact that the contract is exclusively with this station meant that, at times, when the beneficiary had to travel to rural areas, she had to take additional fuel in gallon tanks inside the vehicle, which “ran the risk of an explosion for all those who travelled in the vehicle.” 11. As to the protective measures for the Committee‟s offices, the representatives indicated that they had requested the Ministry of the Interior and Justice to ensure that the risk assessment of the office be carried out by national police officers in civilian clothing, and to schedule the assessment on a date on which those responsible for making the assessment could introduce themselves to the beneficiary and provide her with clear information on the procedure. However, they advised that “to date” they had not received any answer to these requests. They considered that this “reveals the delays with which the State responds to a situation of risk” and they expressed their concern about the possible repetition of incidents such as those that took place on August 15, 2010 (infra fourteenth considering paragraph), given that insufficient measures of protection have been taken based on the evidence of the risk to the said organization‟s office. Subsequently, in their observations of February 16, 2011, they asked that the State provide “a satisfactory explanation […] of the measures that can be adopted to protect the office.” 12. The representatives also referred to the uncertainty that has arisen with regard to the administration of the protection scheme in favor of the beneficiary Islena Rey, principally in their observations of August 25 and December 23, 2010. They explained that Colombia had not provided them with “complete information regarding the alternatives for administering the protection schemes”; therefore, uncertainty persists about the continuation of the DAS and its competence to administer protection schemes. Regarding the possibility that the protection scheme be administered by a private company, they listed a series of observations regarding the contract between the Ministry of the Interior and Justice and the private security company that could take over the administration of the protection programs, which had been communicated to the State; however, they mentioned that the latter “has responded partially to the concerns.” In this regard, they formulated a series of specific questions and asked the State to answer them precisely. 7 In general, they stated that they considered that the “provision of the [protection] scheme by a private 6 In this regard, they specified that, in July 2010, the beneficiary informed the State that she required the entire scheme in order to travel to several municipalities of Meta to carry out human rights dissemination activities; however, not only was “[the said] request ignored,” but the DAS “informed the National Police and the National Army that she [would] travel to the said places on those dates, noting that she would not be protected by her escort.” They indicated that, even though the law enforcement units called the beneficiary on several occasions to find out if she was all right, that does not constitute a measure of protection coordinated with the beneficiary and “does not correspond to the extraordinary risk of the [human rights] defender.” 7 These questions correspond, inter alia, to concerns regarding the following issues: the “extreme care” established for escorting a person whose risk is extraordinary; the complaints and observations system as regards failures in the protection scheme; the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice in responding to the said complaints; the “essential controls” established for hiring escorts; the State‟s verification and support for training and re-training; the procedures for supervising contracts, and the beneficiary's possibility of participating in the evaluation of the operation of the protection scheme administered by a private company.