4 (f) The Prosecutor General’s Office reported that investigation No. 2169 was in the preliminary stages and that, to date, two of those involved had been identified. Regarding the facts that occurred on February 13 (sic), 2006, it indicated that the 10th Special Prosecutor of Medellín was conducting various investigatory activities to clarify the facts and identify those responsible. 7. The communications of August 16, 2006, from the representatives, in which they reported, among other matters: (a) Concerning María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño: i) She had not lived in Commune XIII for almost two years; she had moved to another part of Medellín owing to the danger she faced if she remained in her residence; this made her an intra-urban displaced person. She remained President of the Las Independencias Women’s Association (AMI), and for financial reasons had been obliged to leave her children in her family home; however, she remained in contact with them and with the women in the district. María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño requested that the State adopt “effective measures resulting in a genuine dismantling of the paramilitary groups that still control the zone and jeopardize the life of the leaders who do not accept their orders, and also that the threats she has received, the acts that gave rise to the murder of Teresa Yarce, and the joint actions between members of the Army and the paramilitary groups against the residence of Mery Naranjo and her family be the object of a judicial investigation, and iii) She requested the Court to order the State to implement the necessary measures to enable the beneficiary to return home safely and, meanwhile, that she be provided with protection and material support in keeping with her situation as an intra-urban displaced person. (b) Concerning the observations on the State’s report: i) The protection scheme provided to Mery Naranjo Jiménez through the Ministry of the Interior and Justice was inadequate, taking into account the gravity of the facts that preceded the adoption of provisional measures; ii) During the meeting with the State’s representatives on July 19, 2006, the representatives of the beneficiaries requested that, before discussing the material measures of protection for the beneficiaries, the State should inform them why no progress had been made in the judicial investigation into the illegal search of the residence of the Naranjo family and the attack against the life and personal integrity of some of its members. They have not received a satisfactory, coherent reply about progress in the investigation; iii) It is not true that the beneficiaries and petitioners have refused to accept the risk study proposed by the National Police as a requisite for maintaining the protection scheme. This requirement was imposed by the Ministry of the Interior and Justice as a prerequisite for providing the beneficiaries with the precautionary measures ordered by the Commission, and the protection material they required for displacements. They added that, as they had indicated in the communication of April 6, 2006, “the National Police reported that the result of the risk study [on] the situation of Mery Naranjo [Jiménez] was NORMAL; in other words, similar to that of any other citizen” and that “consequently, the Ministry of the Interior had stated that, in view of this result, Mery Naranjo [Jiménez] and her family could not be beneficiaries of measures of protection under the program operated by that entity.” This was one of the reasons for the request for provisional measures;