circumstances warranted this, or when the beneficiaries or their representatives requested this in writing with sufficient advance notice. b) On February 26, 2012, a meeting was held in which it was agreed that, through the Police Deputy Commissioner, the necessary corrections would be made to comply with the agreed patrols. Furthermore, during this meeting it was agreed to draw up a list with the contact details of the parties who could provide assistance, so that the beneficiaries could communicate with the police authorities in a case of an emergency or complaint and an immediate response would be provided; c) At the meeting of June 11, 2012, it was suggested to the beneficiary that a police post could be set up in front of his house. The State also expressed its willingness to explore options to cover the expenses of the police agents who are safeguarding the life and integrity of Mr. Galdámez and his family, so that he does not have to pay for them, and d) Regarding the investigation into the events that led to the adoption of the provisional measures, the State has identified those possibly responsible and the location of the vehicle they used when committing the criminal act. In addition, as part of the investigation, an identification parade was held with the beneficiary; however, he did not recognize any of the suspects. 6. In different communications, the representatives of the beneficiaries indicated, inter alia, that: a) There has been an evident lack of progress in the investigations and the provisional measures have only been complied with partially, because “there is only an official in front [of the beneficiary’s house], [and] the patrols that were agreed on are carried out sporadically”; b) The State’s commitment to hold monthly meetings and to give priority to the investigation of the acts that led to the adoption of the provisional measures have not been complied with satisfactorily, and c) At times, the police agent assigned to protect Mr. Galdámez and his family leaves to perform other tasks, and no one is sent to substitute him; thus the beneficiaries are left without protection. In addition, the police escort for the journey between the Mr. Galdámez’s home and work is not permanent, but rather sporadic. Furthermore, although the police agents have been changed, this has not led to an improvement in the existing irregularities, because the agents do not respect the agreed timetable. 7. For its part, the Inter-American Commission indicated in its observations that: a) The State has not presented new information regarding the progress of the investigations, and it has not referred to the facts that occurred in 2009, or to the recent facts reported by the representatives. In addition, even though the beneficiaries have not been able to identify those presumably responsible, this should not constitute an obstacle for the investigations to continue; b) Despite the agreements reached at the meeting held in February 2012, the measures of protection are still not being implemented regularly, “which is important in light of the persistence of incidents that could jeopardize the life and integrity of the beneficiaries,” and 3