7 the officers should be reviewed in order to decide whether [the] officers were the most suitable for the job or if a change was required.” The representatives stated that even though Guatemala undertook to send the files of the officers assigned to security, the FAFG never received them. In addition, they pointed out that there are some logistical issues that hinder the implementation of the training courses given that the Personal Protection Division does not have officers available to substitute the officers during training, which implies that, during the training course, no protection would be provided to the beneficiaries, thereby putting them at high risk. Based on the foregoing, the representatives requested the State “to promote and facilitate all reasonable measures for the PNC officers to be duly trained [...].” 24. That the Inter-American Commission pointed out that the State has only referred to its unsuccessful efforts to provide executive security training for the officers responsible for the protection of the members of the FAFG, which shows that no results have been achieved so far. 25. That the State has acknowledged that the efforts made with other government agencies to arrange for the provision of such training have been “unsuccessful” and that there are logistical obstacles that must be overcome. 26. That in every process of implementation of provisional measures several government authorities are involved and each one has its own procedures, laws and regulations. However, these international proceedings are concerned with the review and assessment of compliance with the Orders of the Court and the results of government action, and not with the different steps taken by an entity or officer. In light of the foregoing and based on a fair assessment of the steps taken by certain government agencies, the Court notes that over two years have elapsed since the adoption of the provisional measures and the State has failed to comply with its obligations in that regard (Considering clause No. 5). * * * 27. That the State informed the Court of the progress and status of the judicial investigations of the facts that gave rise to these provisional measures, specifying that, initially, the complaints made by the members of the FAFG and some of their relatives were handled by the Human Rights Prosecutor’s Division of the Attorney General’s Office under file No. 30402001, and that in each of those cases, said Prosecutor’s Division conducted investigation proceedings, appointed special investigators to the cases involving threats and gave specific investigation guidelines or intsructions. Subsequently, the State reported that several cases regarding the FAFG were consolidated to case No. 3457-2002. In this regard, the State acknowledged that the proceedings conducted by the Attorney General’s Office “[h]ave not been sufficient to resolve the case and, therefore, the measures of protection implemented by the National Civil Police are still in place” and that the security services provided to the members of the FAFG and their relatives “[h]ave surpassed the standards of protection of the Ministry of the Interior and the National Civil Police, and yet the threats against Fredy Peccerelli-Monterroso, Bianka Peccerelli and Omar Bertoni-Girón have not stopped.” 28. That the representatives stated that the only progress in the investigation has been the appointment of Prosecutor Marco Tulio Escobar Orrego to lead the investigation regarding the complaints made by several members of the FAFG and their relatives, and the consolidation of the respective cases. Furthermore, they stated that: a) no information has been provided concerning specific progress in the investigation of the incidents reported since 2002; b) there is still fear that similar incidents will take place as a result of the impunity and lack of diligence in the investigation; c) any measure of protection is insufficient as long as the source of the threats is not established; and d) it is necessary that the persons that are under threat have