4 (d) That it is important that the State and the beneficiaries, through their representatives, create opportunities for dialogue in order to improve the implementation of the measures of protection. 6. The briefs of the representatives of April 3, 2002, September 3, 2002, November 20, 2002, November 22, 2002, January 8, 2003, January 10, 2003, June 2, 2003, August 29, 2003, November 6, 2003, March 8, 2004, June 15, 2004, January 11, 2005, June 13, 2005, October 10, 2005, November 4, 2005, and April 17, 2006, in which they indicated, inter alia, that: (a) Regarding the protection scheme for María Nodelia Parra, there had been problems with its implementation, such as the absence of information about changes in her escorts. They also stated that, since the provisional measures had been ordered, events had occurred that appeared to indicate that the situation of danger and threat surrounding María Nodelia Parra and her family persisted. No progress had been made in the investigation seeking to clarify the threats and dangerous acts that María Nodelia Parra and her next of kin had experienced and it had not been possible to identify and punish those responsible. Mrs. Nodelia Parra would remain in danger until the origin and authors of the threats and harassment were identified. Consequently, it was necessary to retain the measures and obtain results as regards the identification of the individuals who took part in the acts of telephone interception and stalking endured by the beneficiary; (b) Gonzalo Arias Alturo was in the Combita Prison, in the department of Boyacá, and was satisfied with his security situation. Regarding the contents of the State’s report of March 24, 2006, concerning the beneficiary’s alleged interest in the lifting of the measures of protection ordered in his favor, it was essential that the State provide a copy of the official record containing this statement. In addition, the State should obtain a statement from him in which he described in detail his reasons for considering that the measures ordered in his favor should be lifted, under conditions that guaranteed the beneficiary’s freedom of expression; (c) It had not been possible to establish contact with Élida González Vergel and, consequently, no information had been included on her situation; however, it should not be understood that Élida González had decided to waive the measures of protection. Nevertheless, they stated that “if it was considered appropriate, according to the available information, the provisional measures ordered in favor of Elida González could be suspended and their reactivation assessed when there was news of her”; and (d) The State’s willingness to create opportunities for coordination and monitoring of the provisional measures had not materialized in a periodic and adequate mechanism to achieve this. CONSIDERING 1. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 31, 1973, and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985.