4 results. Finally, the representatives requested that the Court “urge the State of Guatemala to comply with its commitments to provide adequate protection to the petitioners,” and “that it assign more personnel to the protection of FAFG members.” 8. The Commission observed that “there are profound discrepancies [in] the information provided by the parties” and expressed its concern regarding the State’s withdrawal of police protection. The Commission noted that the State “has substantially reduced the beneficiaries’ protection and that [...] there is no information showing them to be in agreement with this step [...].” Taking into account this substantial reduction along with the reoccurrence of threats (infra Considering 20-21), the Commission remarked that “the protective measures have been neither sufficient nor effective, keeping the beneficiaries in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency.” The Commission moved the Court to require that the State “act quickly to provide the necessary security measures in order to guarantee the beneficiaries’ rights to life and to humane treatment, [as well as] to delineate a complete protection program naming the person in charge of its coordination and execution.” * * * 9. Concerning the security measures adopted in favor of the minors Tristán and Ashley Peccerelli Valle, children of the FAFG Executive Director (Operative Paragraph 3 of the Order of January 26, 2009; supra Having Seen 2), the State indicated in its March 26, 2010 brief that both children “have one security agent per shift, with two shifts provided on an eight day rotation[.] [These agents] are in charge of the security of the children [...] and [...] Mrs. Jeannette de Peccerelli [...],” and have been assigned to them since January 2009. 10. Regarding the State’s March 26, 2010 brief, neither the Inter-American Commission nor the representatives presented observations on this point. * * * 11. As for the security in place for transfers to and from the exhumations (Operative Paragraph 3 of the Order of January 26, 2009; supra Having Seen 2), the State in its brief of March 26, 2010 communicated that, according to information from the Ministry of Governance, these transfers will be coordinated with the Deputy Director General for Operations to provide “security in the mountains” and that the local police should be consulted for coordinating the exhumations. The State also indicated that it was “going to hold a meeting with the beneficiaries in order to coordinate eventual protective measures with them and to obtain a schedule of transfers and exhumations that are currently pending.” 12. The representatives noted accordingly that the “security in the mountains” constitutes an “obstacle for the project’s development[,] as the mechanism consists in changing security units (patrols) according to the territorial boundaries and local police jurisdiction as assigned to each police unit,” leading to the inconvenient result that agents will not always be available as they are not specifically designated to provide protection to the FAFG. According to the representatives, “this mechanism is ineffective because it does not provide for backup units to cover the entire route.” Regarding the State’s remarks on coordinating exhumations, the representatives noted that the State does not indicate who is to perform coordination nor the manner in which it is to be conducted; the representatives also stated that the FAFG “does not have authority over the various local police in order to request this coordination.” The representatives suggested that “based on the bi-weekly Schedule of Activities that FAFG gives to -COPREDEH-, the Ministry of Governance issue direct orders of superior authority to the