9 its next report on the implementation of these measures, the State refer to the status of the execution of the said risk assessment of the organization‟s office, and also to any possible measures it might adopt in this regard. Moreover, the Court urges the beneficiary and her representatives to provide the state authorities with the necessary and reasonable collaboration and cooperation for the conduct of this assessment. 21. Regarding the changes in the administration of the beneficiary‟s protection scheme, the Court recalls that it had asked the representatives to present their observations on “the proposals and arguments presented by the State in relation to the new security scheme […] and, should they not accept the said proposals, to present an option.” 12 The Court takes note of the observations and concerns expressed by the representatives in their communications of August 25 and December 23, 2010 (supra twelfth considering paragraph), as well as the information provided by the State in its brief of June 1, 2010 (supra eighth considering paragraph). Furthermore, it reiterates to the State that the measures of protection and security adopted for the implementation of the provisional measures must be agreed on with the beneficiaries and their representatives and, to this end, it must design mechanisms that allow them to participate in the planning and implementation of such measures, as well as keep them informed on any progress or changes in their execution. 22. The Court recalls that the mere adoption of certain measures of protection by the State is not sufficient; rather such measures and their implementation must be effective so as to end the risk to the individuals they are intended to protect. 13 Therefore, it recalls that the State must take the necessary measures to ensure that the provisional measures required in this Order are planned and implemented with the participation and agreement of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives, so that said measures are provided diligently. The Court observes that several of the problems that occurred in the implementation of these measures were related to the lack of communication between the authorities and the beneficiary or her representatives, as well as the failure to advise the latter of the appropriate means, and the mechanisms and norms applicable to the implementation of the security scheme ordered for the beneficiary. Therefore, the Court requests the State to keep the beneficiaries and their representatives informed about the execution of and progress in complying with these measures; to establish and maintain a suitable and effective means of communication with the beneficiary or her representatives, and to provide a prompt answer to the beneficiary‟s concerns in relation to the operation of her security scheme. 23. In addition, the Court takes note of what happened on August 15, 2010, at the office of the Civic Committee of Meta, an incident that reveals a situation of risk for the beneficiary, who is the President of the Committee. The Court assesses positively that the state authorities responded to this incident immediately, and that the Prosecutor‟s Office has opened an investigation into it. Also, it notes the representatives‟ allegations regarding the conduct of the police officers assigned to guard the office of the said organization and that, consequently, a disciplinary procedure would be followed against the said officers (supra fourteenth and seventeenth considering paragraphs). 12 13 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra note 8, twenty-fifth considering paragraph. Cf. Matter of Juan Almonte Herrera et al. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of March 24, 2010, sixteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra note 10, twenty-seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of November 26, 2010, twenty-sixth considering paragraph.