2 had ordered were being provided to the persons in question. The Commission did not submit observations on this report. 4. The January 4, 1999 communication with which the State transmitted its second report and noted that 24-hour security was being provided to the persons in question and that the visits had confirmed that they “ha[d] not been threatened or harmed in any way.” The Commission did not submit observations on this report. 5. The State’s third report, dated May 6, 1999, wherein it stated that the protective measures consisted of the “daily, round-the-clock patrolling and policing done by National Civil Police officers, working in three shifts,” both at the workplace and residence of Mr. Cabrera López and his family. Mr. Cabrera reported that neither he nor anyone else in his family had received any threats. 6. The June 3, 1999 letters from the President of the Court: the first addressed to the State, asking it to “investigate the facts that necessitated adoption of provisional measures, so as to identify those responsible and punish them accordingly”; the second addressed to the Commission, reminding it of its obligation to present its observations on the State’s reports within six weeks of their receipt. 7. The Commission’s June 18, 1999 observations on the State’s third report wherein it pointed out that the protection afforded to the individuals in question was not round-the clock but every three days, and that Mr. Cabrera’s next of kin had been threatened. 8. The State’s fourth report, dated July 2, 1999, where it reasserted that the protection was round-the-clock and that its recipients had not reported any threats. As for the investigation, Mr. Santiago Cabrera López stated that “he was never threatened and therefore never filed a complaint with the competent authority.” In its August 19, 1999 observations, the Commission asserted that the measures of protection and security that the State claimed to have provided were not provided. It also underscored the fact that in the matter of the threats made to his niece, Mr. Cabrera’s only contact had been the United Nations Verification Mission’s (MINUGUA) human rights officer for the Department of Quetzaltenango. 9. The State’s September 9, 1999 communication conveying its fifth report, wherein it reiterated that the security measures described above (supra 8) were being taken; it therefore denied the petitioners’ assertions. As for the investigation, it pointed out that the competent authorities had not received any complaints of threats and asked that “Mr. Cabrera López go to the Public Prosecutor’s Office” to confirm the complaint and supply the facts for the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate. In its October 21, 1999 observations on this report, the Commission noted that the petitioners had indicated that they were satisfied with the visits made by the State authorities to ensure the effectiveness of the protective measures and were gratified that COPREDEH had intervened to bring the threats to the attention of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 10. Guatemala’s sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth reports -dated November 10, 1999, January 18, March 8, May 11 and October 7, 2000, respectively- wherein the State asserted that the round-the-clock protection provided to Mr. Santiago Cabrera López and his next of kin was ongoing and that the individuals in question had told State officials that they were not being threatened or harmed in any way. As for the investigation, in the sixth report the State noted that Mr. Cabrera López