“responds to a measure of reparation ordered by the […] Court and not to a measure of protection.” However, it informed that during the deprivation of the beneficiary’s liberty, “the competent authorities have effectively and timely guaranteed his right to health.”14 Moreover, Colombia also indicated that the Group on Penitentiary and Prison Affairs of the Ombudsman’s Office Specialized in Human Rights and Ethnic Matters had requested the Provincial Attorney General of Ocaña to visit the beneficiary. The State requested the rescission of the provisional measures granted in favor of the beneficiary because “at present, there are no objective conditions for maintaining them”, due to the fact that the beneficiary is detained and serving a sentence and that “there have been no news regarding [his] situation of risk.” 20. In its observations, the representatives have repeatedly requested that the provisional measures ordered in favor of William Rodríguez Quintero be maintained. They noted that the deprivation of the beneficiary’s liberty “does not per se exonerate the Colombian State from its responsibility in relation to his protection and its obligation to provide him with adequate medical and psychological care.” In their briefs of August and October 2010, the representatives indicated that the detention of the beneficiary “is the continuation of the systematic harassment” of which the Rodríguez Quintero family “have been victims” and they objected to the presentation of the beneficiary’s guilt to the media, before being prosecuted. In November 2011, the representatives informed that, at his request, the beneficiary was transferred from the Cúcuta prison to the Ocaña prison, both for humanitarian and safety reasons, since the alleged perpetrator of the murder of his brother, Jhon Carlos Rodríguez Quintero, was being held in the Cúcuta prison. They claimed that they were unaware of the protective measures that had been implemented in favor of William Rodríguez Quintero in prison. In its observations of June 2012, they indicated that the relatives of Mr. William Rodriguez Quintero informed them that he had been “visited, on several occasions, from officials of governing bodies during the last weeks”. With regard to the medical and psychological care of the beneficiary, the representatives stated that the care provided “occasionally and specifically” to the beneficiary by CAPRECOM “does not meet the criteria for adequate medical and psychological treatment” given that, inter alia, it does not include mental health services.15 They insisted that Mr. William Rodríguez Quintero’s addiction problems relate both to the disappearance and murder of two of his brothers and to “the stigmatization brought about in the past by members of the Police against him and the other members of [his] family.” They stated that “[i]t [was] interesting” that the State considers that this is not part of the provisional measures, taking into account that such measure of reparation “has not hitherto been duly implemented” by the State. 21. The Commission noted that “from the information submitted by the State, it does not spring that specific measures of protection would be implemented in relation to this beneficiary” and requested the Court to urge the State to adopt measures. It highlighted that the parties had presented contradictory information regarding the health condition of the beneficiary, and considered it was “important” to make all efforts so that he may receive adequate medical care. In relation to the request to rescind the measures in favor of William Rodríguez Quintero, the Commission repeatedly indicated that the situation of deprivation of liberty of said beneficiary “does not automatically imply the elimination of the risk to which the beneficiaries have been exposed and therefore does not constitute a circumstance per se to justify the rescission of the provisional measures.” Thus, it considered that the Court should have updated information in relation to the situation of risk of the beneficiary and the measures of protection that are being provided to the beneficiary at present, before issuing a decision regarding the State’s request to rescind the measures. 14 In its report of December 7, 2011, the State informed that beneficiary William Rodríguez Quintero had been taken care for “each time it was required” by medical personnel of CAPRECOM. 15 In addition, they informed that in June 2012, the Director of the Penitentiary National Institute had announced that it would change the Health Care Provider, given the "inadequate care provided by CAPRECOM". 8