investigating and this should be taken into account when assessing the measures to be adopted. 16. The Court takes note of the information presented by the State regarding the reasons for the reduction in the number of agents who provide security to the beneficiaries. It also observes that, according to information provided by the State itself, this change in the security plan was notified to the beneficiaries the day before it went into effect (supra considering paragraph 12) and that the beneficiaries were not asked their opinion or whether they agreed with the change prior to its implementation (supra considering paragraph 10). In this regard, the Court recalls that these measures must be planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries or the representatives, so that they are prompt and effective. Additionally, in keeping with the second operative paragraph of the order of the Court of January 26, 2009, the State must keep the beneficiaries informed of any progress in their execution. 17. The Court also notes that the information provided by the representatives and the State reveals that, currently, none of the members of the Foundation has personal protection, because, due to the said reduction in personnel, only some members of the family of the Director of the Foundation are being protected by the bodyguard service. In addition, regarding these security measures, it notes with concern the observations of the representatives that the beneficiaries have to choose which beneficiary receives protection at different times because, on each shift, a single agent protects more than one person. Consequently, when they separate, one or several of the individuals protected by this service are left unprotected and, in some cases, it is the children. In this regard, the Court recalls that it is not sufficient that the State adopt certain measures of protection; rather, these measures and their implementation must be effective so that that risk ceases for those whose protection is sought.9 Therefore, the Court asks the State to refer specifically in its next report to: (i) the observations of the representatives and the Inter-American Commission that the beneficiaries have to choose who will be protected; (ii) the specific protection measures it has adopted or will adopt to protect effectively all the beneficiaries who are members of the family of the FAFG Director, Fredy Armando Peccerelli, especially the children, owing to their special situation of risk, and (iii) the need to adopt personalized measures of protection for any other beneficiary, especially the FAFG Executive Director or other members of the Foundation. It also requested the representatives of the beneficiaries to refer particularly to the latter point (supra (iii)) in their observations on the corresponding State report, and include specific observations on the other points on which the State was requested to provide information. 18. Furthermore, the Court observes that the State indicated that it had made risk assessments of the beneficiary Fredy Peccerelli, Director of the Foundation, and his family, as well as of the organization’s headquarters, and that the results were reflected in the measures adopted (supra considering paragraph 12). It also takes note of the representatives’ observation that they have not received the results of the assessments, and that the parameters described by the State for making the assessment do not include special consideration for the type of work carried out by the Foundation and its members (supra considering paragraph 13). In this regard, the Court appreciates the assessment made by the State authorities of the specific risk to which the beneficiaries are exposed. However, it observes that these assessments and results have not been presented or communicated to the Court. It also reminds the State that it must advise the representatives of any advances in the implementation of these measures, so that it is not sufficient that the results of the studies are 9 Cf. Matter of Juan Almonte Herrera et al. Provisional measures with regard to Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of March 24, 2010, sixteenth considering paragraph; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra note 3, twenty-seventh considering paragraph, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Court of November 26, 2010, twenty-sixth considering paragraph. 7