8 María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño.11 The representatives have presented before the Court information highlighting irregularities associated with the functioning of the custody post in the residence of Mery Naranjo and the non-compliance with the duties of the police officers in charge; problems related to the functioning of the communication radios of Avantel; the lack of conformity of Mery Naranjo and María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño with the liaisons assigned as part of the Plan Padrino; the suspension of the transportation support in several occasions; and the insufficiency of the supports to temporarily relocate Mery Naranjo and her family members to leave Comuna 13 in case this is necessary. The State has recognized before the Court that some challenges have presented themselves in the implementation of these measures, but that it has adopted the necessary measures. The Court for its part has valued in a positive way the efforts from the State, but has highlighted the need to improve the effectiveness of the protection measures implemented, the insufficiency of the same in relation to protection needs, and its understanding that the beneficiaries must participate in the planning of the same. 33. On March 3, 2011, the Commission requested that the provisional measures ordered in this case be amplified pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention, so that the Court would order the Colombian State to protect the life and personal integrity of the children, grandchildren and one daughter-in-law12 of Mrs. María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño. The IACHR justified its request by citing “a series of attacks suffered by family members of human rights defender Socorro Mosquera; these attacks are repeated occurrences and have intensified in recent months and include various threats and acts of harassment against them and even the murder of Lubin Alfonso, a minor and Mrs. Mosquera’s grandson.”13 In an order dated March 4, 2011, the Court granted the requested amplification, citing the danger to the proposed beneficiaries and its concern over the alleged involvement of state agents in these attacks. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Position of the Petitioners Context 34. The petitioners make a number of arguments relating to the socioeconomic situation in Medellín’s Comuna 13, the longstanding clash between the various armed actors in the area, and the military operations which took place there in 2002. They describe how Comuna 13 is composed of 22 neighborhoods where the vast majority of families survive on incomes below the minimum legal wage. Those conditions, combined with the lack of state policies to effectively correct the situation, caused the 11 In the case of María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, the State has informed about the granting of the following measures of protection: i) a means of communication “Avantel” so that she can communicate with her police liaison in the case of threats; ii) her association with the “Plan Padrino” with the National Police, by means of which she has a trust agent in the city of Medellín; and iii) different supports of land transportation. 12 The IACHR requested amplification of the measures to include Lubin Arjadi Mosquera, Hilda Milena Villa Mosquera, Iván Alberto and Marión Daniel Herrera Mosquera; Luisa María and Luis Alfonso Mosquera Guisao; Daniel Steven Herrera Vera; Luisa Fernanda Herrera Vera; Sofía Flores Montoya; and Maria Eugenia Guisao González. See, IACHR, Request for Amplification of Provisional Measures submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. regarding the Republic of Colombia, March 3, 2011, page 1. 13 See, IACHR, Request for Amplification of Provisional Measures submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. regarding the Republic of Colombia, March 3, 2011, paragraph 2.