4 2. Regarding the participation of the beneficiaries in the implementation of the provisional measures 9. That regarding the participation of the beneficiaries in the implementation of the measures, in its latest communication, the State affirmed that “it had not received any complaint or observation from the beneficiaries regarding the police protection they receive.” 10. That the representatives advised that “since October 2005 […] the protection provided has been offered according to the security plan presented by the beneficiaries, and the Metropolitan Police Motorized Department has collaborated fully in its implementation.” 11. That the State has the obligation to take all pertinent measures to ensure that measures of protection ordered are planned and implemented with the participation of beneficiaries of such measures or their representatives, so that the measures implemented diligently and effectively.5 The Court appreciates the fact that in implementation of some of the measures of protection, several proposals made by representatives have been taken into account. 3. the the are the the Regarding the obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures 12. That, regarding the obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures, the State informed the Court that: 5 (a) On September 29, 2008, the Thirty-third Court of First Instance with Monitoring Functions of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas held an oral hearing in which it decided “to declare admissible the refusal to admit the complaints” corresponding to the following facts: the e-mail threats and the acts of harassment presumably perpetrated against Liliana Ortega; the alleged anonymous telephone calls and acts of harassment and intimidation suffered by the members of COFAVIC in the Church of San Francisco in Caracas; the public declarations against this organization by the former Director of the Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP) and of a member of Congress, as well as that of an unidentified individual who was carrying a firearm inside the COFAVIC offices; (b) On October 6, 2008, the legal representative of COFAVIC filed an appeal against this decision that was declared “admissible by the Court of Appeal of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas,” which proceeded “to declare the nullity of the refusal to admit the complaints”; (c) Regarding the complaint concerning the interruption of the electricity services, and the complaint concerning some declarations against Liliana Ortega, “it had requested a stay of proceedings” because “the jurisdictional body determined that the said events did not harm any of the interests protected by the Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. Provisional measures with regard to El Salvador. Order of the Court of January 27, 2007, twelfth considering paragraph.