26 Commission forwarded the information required within the terms established to that end; therefore they have not complied with their duty to timely inform the Tribunal. * * * 73. That the State has informed, on some occasions, on investigations conducted, measures of protection and temporary relocation adopted regarding the beneficiaries, as well as the actions conducted by the National Police to protect the beneficiaries from the armed groups. 74. That the representatives indicated in their briefs that they have lost contact with Mrs. Sandra Montero and her family and that the Flórez family continued being threatened and harassed by armed groups. 75. That, during the hearing, the State recalled that, by mutual agreement of the petitioners, it has implemented, since they were ordered, six measures to support transport, twelve measures to relocate, six national tickets, three means of communication and two tracking systems. On August 28, 2008 a follow-up meeting was held, in which the State made several commitments, such as to conduct a meeting with an officer of the Presidential Program on Human Rights and some of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, in Ocaña- which was held on October 24 that year-, as well as to do three studies on risk of the three families that the petitioners informed that live in Ocaña, which were done in December. In the case of Mr. Salomón Flórez, the State mentioned that he has returned to the country in December 2006 and that no recent incident occurred, only one in the year 2007 and another in May 2008, which did not call for a change in the assessment of risk. The State brought to the Court’s attention the situation of the families who have not declared the need of special measures of protection. 76. That as to the conditions of safety in the area of Ocaña, the State pointed out that it is an area of cocaine production, which is near the border and it is used to transport outside the country. Moreover, it referred to delinquent activities related to said production. representatives and the Commission, respectively, to present said observations to the state reports, expired; therefore, following the instructions of the Court's President, they were requested to present such observations as soon as practicable. Also see the notes of the Secretariat of March 4 and April 7, 2008, in relation to the request of the Inter-American Commission to have an additional term to present their observations to the request to rescind the measures filed by the State and to its reports. In those notes, it was informed that, considering that at the moment of said request for an extension, the term above mentioned had not yet expired, in case the representatives failed to present their observations upon the expiration of the term, as has previously occurred with the observations that they should have presented to the state reports, an additional time limit would be established for the Inter-American Commission to present the corresponding observations. Considering that by April 7, 2008 the Court did not receive the observations of the representatives, following the instructions of the Court's President, they were requested to present them, as soon as possible; the additional time limit requested by the Commission was granted until April 21, 2008 and it was noted that the time limit granted did not depend on the forwarding of the observations of the representatives. Finally, see, the Secretariat's notes of April 24, 2008 by means of which it was informed that up to that date, the Court had not received the observations of the representatives to the request to rescind the measures filed by the State and to its reports; therefore, following the instructions of the President, they were requested to present them as soon as practicable.