3 and Daniela Carpio- Fischer, should they return to the country. According to the information furnished by the representatives, Daniela Carpio-Fischer has allegedly returned to Guatemala. * * * 4. That at the private hearing, the State noted that it was “willing to maintain the protective measures adopted in favor of Mrs. Karen Fischer, her children, Rodrigo and Daniela Carpio, and Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, acknowledging that the adopted measures are necessary in light of the fact that the Attorney General’s Office is activating the investigation before the courts, and that it [therefore] canceled its request to lift the provisional measures of June 14, 2007.” 5. That, with regard to beneficiary Abraham Méndez, the State noted that “it was not calling for the measures to be canceled but for them to be implemented by the Judiciary, [which] has put in place security services for its officers, since [Mr. Méndez] works for this important Guatemalan body." 6. That the State finally noted that it had met with the representatives, who had expressed that most of the beneficiaries "do not wish to have security measures adopted in their favor", except for Mr. Abraham Méndez, who has requested protective measures. In this regard, the State deemed it "convenient to establish some form of direct communication with the beneficiaries of the measures and pointed out [that], when appropriate, said beneficiaries should give notice of any risk that may arise, for the State to coordinate such security measures as the situation may require.” 7. That at the private hearing the representatives confirmed that they had met with the State and expressed that the new impetus that has been given at the domestic level to the investigation into the facts considered in the Judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala2 "results in the persistence of the risks that confront the beneficiaries”, and hence they requested that the provisional measures be kept in force. They added that said risks “are even greater for Mrs. Karen Fischer, who is the public face of the instant case in Guatemala, and has been the target of threats and attacks whenever she has appeared in the media to demand justice or to talk about the case." The same is true for Mr. Jorge Carpio, since his "name is the same as his father's" and he is publicly known as the director of the newspaper "Moneda". 8. That with regard to Mrs. Karen Fischer, the representatives noted that “she has not been the target of new threats or acts of harassment” but that “the absence of violent acts against her derives, in fact, from the continuation and implementation of the provisional measures." 9. That with regard to Daniela Carpio-Fischer, the representatives expressed that “she is not protected by the State, even when she may be targeted for retaliation as a consequence of her mother's participation in giving impetus to the investigations." 10. That the representatives did not submit any information about Mr. Rodrigo Carpio-Fischer. 11. That with regard to Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga and her children Jorge and Rodrigo Carpio-Arrivillaga, the representatives expressed that “they have not reported any 2 Cfr. Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117.