Bernardo Bátiz Vázquez, Federal District Attorney General Juan José Gómez Camacho, Director General of Human Rights; and Jorge Ulises Carmona Tinoco, Director for Individual Cases, Human Rights Directorate For the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Mario López Garelli, Inter-American Commission lawyer Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Inter-American Commission lawyer Carmen Herrera, assistant Viviana Krsticevic, assistant, and Juan Carlos Gutiérrez, assistant. 7. The arguments of the Inter-American Commission, in which it: a) presented updated information on the risk status of the colleagues and next of kin of Digna Ochoa and assessed the State’s compliance with the measures that had been ordered; b) set out, in chronological order, from 1995 to date, the threats, harassment and violent attacks against Digna Ochoa y Plácido and other professionals who collaborated with her in her work. The death of Digna Ochoa marked the culmination of a cycle of intimidation, violence and impunity. The Commission also indicated that the facts described and the death of Digna Ochoa y Plácido confirm the grave and urgent situation involving imminent risk for those who worked closely with Digna Ochoa, the members of the PRODH Center, and her family; c) indicated that it is clear that the series of threats, together with the messages and the types of intimidation, were due to the work of the lawyers of the PRODH Center as human rights defenders and, specifically, were addressed to those lawyers who, like Digna Ochoa, had denounced members of the police force and judicial officials involved in violating fundamental rights before judicial and military bodies; d) indicated that, after the death of Digna Ochoa, her parents and siblings had also expressed their concern about a series of incidents involving threats, strange telephone calls and the presence of unknown persons; e) added that the conditions in which the investigation into the death of Digna Ochoa was being conducted did not ensure that justice would be done or the facts of the case clarified; f) indicated that the specific measures requested are reasonable and their implementation is very simple and that it is difficult to understand why the State has provided such a partial and delayed response when there is a situation of imminent risk. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the primary measure of protection for the beneficiaries is the criminal investigation, the clarification of the facts and the punishment of those responsible; and g) stated that it endorsed the observations made by the representatives of the beneficiaries of the measures, which were forwarded to the Court by the Commission it is brief of November 21, 2001 (supra having seen 6), and