3 a) Colomina is protected round the clock by two officers of the Municipal Police Department of Chacao, given her refusal to be placed under the protection of officers of the Dirección de Servicio de Inteligencia y Prevención (DISIP) (Intelligence and Prevention Service). At no time has she been left unprotected and no payment whatsoever is made on that account; b) the beneficiaries “have not provided any information conducive to the identification of the perpetrators, or sketches, or identification at lineups, [...] [in addition to the fact] that the modus operandi of the perpetrators prevented any fingerprints from being lifted;” c) the beneficiaries altered the crime scene, preventing the gathering “of evidence leading to the identification of the perpetrators” by specialists from the State’s security forces; d) the beneficiaries “have not shown any interest in the public and oral hearings at which their presence had been requested by both the Prosecutor’s Office and the courts in order that they would express their concerns and needs regarding the implementation of such measures[…],” “which, by itself, suggests that the situation of impending danger is no longer such;” e) “the facts that led to the adoption of the measures of protection took place amidst a state of social upheaval,” and f) Marta Colomina “is intentionally exaggerating in order to create […] the impression in the Court that she is the victim of political persecution.” This was the case with the threat allegedly made by the Minister of Communications and Information, Andrés Izarra, through a telephone call to Marta Colomina’s radio show. 10. The July 8, 2005 submission of comments by the representatives, which they filed after obtaining a deadline extension and whereby they asserted, inter alia, that: a) the State failed to comply with its obligation to conduct an exhaustive, conclusive investigation of the facts that are the subject-matter of this case. The State attempts to justify such failure, but the beneficiaries “were never actually called upon to testify by the Prosecutor’s Office, and never were they asked to appear before expert artists to have a sketch drawn up,” and b) through its own courts, the State is seeking to substitute the provisional measures with measures of protection provided for in its own domestic laws, so as to avoid direct compliance with the provisional measures ordered by the Court. 11. The July 14, 2005 letter from the Secretariat, whereby the parties were notified that, given that the representatives’ communication of July 8, 2005 and the State’s brief of May 25, 2005 contained expressions and labels that are unnecessary in the context of international jurisdiction, further to the President’s instructions they were invited to refrain from using that kind of remarks.