4 protection (amparo), which ended on November 6, 2008; (c) on April 14, 2005, at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the beneficiary reported he had suffered a pursuit on April 11, 2005 while he was accompanied by his two bodyguards. The agent of the Public Ministry in charge of the previous investigation, CUH-6T2/402/2005-03, sent the brief to the Attorney General’s Office for its monitoring. They remarked the fact that the beneficiary had not been notified of the “initiation” of a preliminary inquiry by the federal authority prevented him from completing his complaint and assisting the Public Prosecutor in the investigation intended to establish the identity of those who had carried out the pursuit. Said omission, together with the decision to shelve the preliminary inquiry until new data appeared and the time that has elapsed, not only allow the perpetrators to go unpunished but also maintain the risk against the beneficiary; and (d) Noncommissioned officer Felipe de Jesús Pérez-Carmona, who reported to his superiors the pursuit suffered by Mr. Rivero on October 2, 2006, was murdered on November 13, 2007, without there being, to date, any satisfactory explanation of the circumstances of his death, or of whether or not it was related to the reporting of the pursuit. Additionally, it is not known whether the perpetrator has been identified, or whether the fact is likely to be related to the hostile acts against the beneficiary. Similarly, representatives made reference to the lack of investigation into the death of Federal Agent Jorge FuentesVillamar. 8. That they were concerned about the fact that the authorities responsible for prosecuting the crime and those in charge of administering justice had respectively taken and rubber-stamped the decision to conclude the inquiry by not exercising the criminal action, which keeps alive the existing risk to the beneficiary’s safety. Likewise, because the hostile acts against him and his next-of-kin have been perpetrated at intervals, they live in constant fear of the consummation of the threats and intimidating acts, the last of which took place on November 8, 2006. 9. That in relation to implementation measures, the representatives stressed that the escort service is still being provided as established by the State: the beneficiary uses public transport and, as far as possible, security staff follow the vehicle in which the beneficiary is travelling in their own assigned vehicle, from Monday to Friday, during the time the beneficiary performs his professional activities. As regards the cellular telephones assigned to the beneficiaries, they pointed out that they were replaced on March 18, 2008 and have been working properly since April 25, 2008. As regards the surveillance tasks entrusted to the staff of the General Office for Public Security and Traffic of the State of Mexico (hereinafter, “the General Office for Security”), they informed that a series of anomalies have affected the service during the last eight weeks and those in charge of the surveillance have often left notices saying that they had been at the beneficiaries' domicile during their patrol and had found no members of the family. However, some family members were present at said domicile, so it is inaccurate to say that the patrol actually took place. The anomaly has been entered in the service logbook kept by the General Office for Security. 10. That, as regards the investigation of the facts that prompted the adoption of provisional measures, the Commission urged the State to conduct it with due diligence. It considered that, insofar as the facts have not been elucidated and those responsible have not been identified, it cannot be concluded that the risk to the beneficiaries, as the Court timely acknowledged it, has been eradicated. As regards protection measures, the Commission was pleased to take cognizance of the implementation of different measures in favor of the beneficiaries.