then working for the Intelligence and Prevention Services Bureau (DISIP) and later on by the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN) between March 1, 2008 and May 1, 2011. 9. The representatives expressed their disagreement with the fact that the measures "[are] subjected to the domestic supervision of the 'order’ of the Criminal Court," since this would imply "restricting and limiting the liberties and conditions imposed by the [...] Court". Therefore, they requested that the State Human Rights Agency - or, failing that, the Ombudsman - be the body responsible for mediating and implementing the provisional measures granted by the Court. However, “given that it is an autonomous decision of the Venezuelan State to appoint the organ who will administer the execution of the decisions and orders of the Court, they note[d] that it [could] not be any organ or entity that [might] try to establish restrictive conditions or terms different from the ones established by [the] Court". To this end, they asked the Court to either order the State to remedy this irregularity in order for the State to take on the coordination of the provisional measures “together with the competent security bodies and to dispense with the intervention of the judicial body,” or else to order the State to broadly and effectively guarantee full compliance with the decision of the Court. Likewise, the representatives indicated that “the manner in which the […] Venezuelan State w[ould] be applying the provisional measures ordered by the Court had been a burden for the beneficiary,” for the following reasons: a) submission to the supervision of a Criminal Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, which would have “caused a risk to the life and integrity of the [beneficiary]” since that would subject her to “periodic appearances before the court, and the verification of her activities"; b) the police security is only provided in the city of Caracas, even though it is well known that the beneficiary travels to different regions of the country for work and family reasons and Caracas is not her place of residence or work; and c) the beneficiary is not allowed "to make statements to the media about the implementation of the measures[, constituting] a totally unjustified form of prior censorship." According to the representatives, these issues have been repeatedly raised in their comments “but, to date, the Venezuelan State has not made any modifications, nor has the Court ruled [in that regard]”. Moreover, they indicated that the State’s measures were adopted without listening to the beneficiary and without taking into account her true needs for protection. The representatives also noted that there are inconsistencies in the January 2009 “Registry and Supervision of Service and Custody" sheet submitted by the State, given that although “police patrolling [was] confined to the Metropolitan Area of Caracas,” the sheet indicated the provision of protection in places other than Caracas. 10. The Commission reiterated on several occasions that the State has not provided a response to the discontent expressed by the beneficiary as to the spatial limitation of the protective measures. It therefore asked the Tribunal to order the State to submit specific information regarding the measures adopted to protect the integrity of the beneficiary and, in particular, to broaden the scope of the protection of the beneficiary to beyond the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. Likewise, it argued that the fact that any issue related to the implementation of the protective measures is subject to a judicial action before the national courts entails a delay to the solution of problems that arise. Furthermore, the Commission submitted the following comments on the "Registry and Supervision of Service and Custody" sheets submitted by the State for the period of July to October, 2008: a) there are no sheets after October, 2008; b) it is odd that the second pages of the sheets of July and August record identical activities, times and days; c) although the sheets mention trips to a city outside Caracas, it is not clear whether the beneficiary was effectively accompanied; d) the sheets contain no record of a supposed trip by the beneficiary to the State of Guárico. Moreover, on several occasions, it repeated that the State failed to make reference to the actions taken to allow the participation of the beneficiary in the design and planning of the measures ordered by the Court. To this end, it indicated that the dialog between the parties 4