organization and the residence of the beneficiary under the terms agreed during the meeting held on February 16, 2012, and to rebuild the beneficiary’s trust in the authorities. Regarding the meeting with the high-ranking State’s authorities, “they value[d] the efforts made by the State to hold several meetings with the leaders of [state] institutions [, however] they reiterate[d] their request for a single joint meeting, [...] to obtain a political commitment from the highest authorities that the harassments will be properly investigated.” On April 9, 2012 they suggested to the State five possible dates for the meeting with the President of the Republic. 11. In addition, by means of a communication of June 7, 2012, the representatives indicated that Mrs. Lanza Ochoa “requires to be informed 15 days in advance” of any meeting in order to organize her schedule and “take her own self-protection measures”. Moreover, on May 7th, 2012, the beneficiary signed the authorization as injured party (autorización de ofendida) so that the Public Prosecutors Office investigates the crime of threats committed against her, recorded under number 1731, and on May 14, 2012, she appeared before the Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to authorize a system analyst to assess her email account. 12. In turn, during the public hearing the Commission indicated that: a) In the instant case, there is no perspective that assimilates the structural problems hindering the protection of human rights defenders in Honduras, which affects the efficacy of the implementation of the provisional measures in favor of the beneficiary; b) There is no general perspective on human rights defenders either. Consequently, it is necessary to address the issue in a comprehensive manner, including: i) safety, ii) the need to foster conditions so that the beneficiary is able to do her specific work, iii) a serious and independent assessment of the risk; iv) taking the beneficiary’s opinions as determining factors; v) creating an environment and a mechanism of trust for the beneficiary; and vi) to investigate the threats and harassments that led to the adoption of the measures of protection; and c) The current situation calls for an immediate response, starting with an initial dialog by which protective measures are offered to Ms. Gladys Lanza Ochoa so that she can assess them and request the best measures applicable to her situation. 13. In turn, the Commission noted that there are no communication channels and coordination actions between the beneficiary, her representatives and the State’s authorities, “a circumstance that hinders the implementation of the protective measures". In addition, it considered it was important for the State to foster trust between government actors and the beneficiary, so that the State may design security schemes that are appropriate and effective for her protection. 14. The Inter-American Court takes cognizance of the actions taken by the State in order to implement the provisional measures ordered by the Court and agreed with the representatives. Nevertheless, in spite of the attempts to coordinate after the public hearing held in the instant case (supra Considering clauses 6 and 10), the Tribunal notes that there continues to be discrepancies among the parties regarding compliance with the measures of protection. Specifically there are discrepancies in: the way to conduct the police patrolling of 5