society in general. The response she received from the highest authorities of the State of Chihuahua was intended to discredit her work as a human rights defender using comments that exceed the boundaries of an opinion on her work and, in the context described, themselves constitute a source of risk. Among the expressions allegedly used by the State’s General Prosecutor and the General Secretary of Government, it is worth mentioning the comment describing Mrs. Castro Rodríguez as a "defender of murderers." 8. The request submitted by the Inter-American Commission, based on Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure, asking the Court to require the State: a) to adopt immediate and specific measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mrs. Luz Estela Castro Rodríguez, and b) to coordinate the provisional measures with the proposed beneficiary, including the possibility of carrying out an individualized risk assessment by an authority trusted by the beneficiary. 9. The note of December 4, the instructions of the President Procedure, asked the State to provisional measures, as well as than January 9, 2013. 2012, in which the Secretariat of the Court, following and based on Article 27(5) of the Court’s Rules of submit its observations regarding the request for any other documents considered pertinent, no later 10. The report presented by the State on January 11, 2013, in which it indicated the following: a) according to the information provided by the State, the authorities contacted the beneficiaries and, between June 2008 and February 2011, held seven work meetings in which representatives of the State (at the federal, state and municipal levels) participated; b) as to the implementation of the precautionary measures in favor of Mrs. Luz Estela Castro, the State pointed out that on May 14, 2008 the petitioner filed a complaint for the crime of threats against her, in response to which investigation 7900-6519/08 was opened. During two years several proceedings were carried out and in January 2010, an order was issued to close the investigation file “since there were not sufficient elements to provide information on the investigation into the facts and to allow for the identification of the probable perpetrators […]. To a large extent, this was due to the fact that, without any justification or reason, the complainant decided not to elaborate on her statement and did not attend the corresponding psychological expert assessments requested by the investigating authority since July 2008”; c) in addition, on April 6, 2010, Mrs. Luz Estela Castro reported a probable raid on the premises of CEDHEM and, in response to that accusation, a formal complaint was filed for the crime of theft. The State indicated that on several occasions the ministerial authority visited the premises of CEDEHM so that Mrs. Castro could elaborate on her statement but it was not possible to locate her. For this reason, on October 11, 2011 the ministerial authority decreed the “Non Exercise of the Criminal Action,” because the statute of limitations for those offenses had already expired. On November 16, 2011 the trial judge revoked 5