lack of protection is aggravated by the increased visibility that he has allegedly acquired in relation to other members of the organization as Director and because of his alleged activities in communities affected by the armed conflict in Colombia (supra Having Seen clause 2 and 11). The Court notes that notwithstanding the implementation of the aforementioned collective protection scheme, Mr. Rueda has allegedly suffered, in recent months and days, an increase in the incidence of threats, aggression monitoring and stalking, and even a alleged armed attack against at his home (supra Having Seen clause 2 and 11). The aforementioned demonstrates Mr. Danilo Rueda’s need for personalized protection to protect his rights. Notwithstanding, it is clear from the information provided by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, that the measures of individual protection agreed upon for Mr. Danilo Rueda have not been implemented. 14. For this reason, although the Court appreciates the State's efforts aimed at implementing the Order of the Acting President on May 2, 2014, the Court finds that Mr. Danilo Rueda remains in a state of vulnerability that warrants provisional measures in his favor, in order to prevent irreparable damage to his life and personal integrity. Consequently, the State must take the necessary steps to implement the measures agreed upon by the parties (supra Having Seen clauses 10 and 11) in an immediate and individualized manner, as well as with the continued participation of Mr. Danilo Rueda or his representatives. 15. In turn, the Court takes note of the information provided by the State in that it had agreed “that independent of the emergency procedures, a Risk Level Assessment of the proposed beneficiary’s situation would be carried out,” (supra Having Seen clause 10, b). Thus, the Court considers that the State must carry out and submit to the Court, within the period prescribed in the operative part of this Order, the assessment of the risk to Mr. Rueda, which includes transport to different parts of the national territory as well as information on provisional measures agreed upon with the beneficiary and implemented in his favor. In this way the implemented measures can be evaluated and, if necessary, modified so that they can be provided effectively. In this regard and for the proper analysis of the implementation of the provisional measures, the Court requested that the parties refer only to the status of Mr. Danilo Rueda, beneficiary of the measures, in their respective briefs. 16. Lastly, the Court recalls that States have a specific duty to protect those who work in non-governmental organizations, as well as provide effective and adequate guarantees to human rights defenders so that they can freely carry out their activities, avoiding actions that limit or hinder their work because their work is a positive and complementary contribution to the efforts of the State by virtue of its role as guarantor of the rights of persons under its jurisdiction. 18 In this line, the prevalence of human rights in a democratic State is based largely on the respect and freedom that is given to the work of defenders. 19 18 Cf. Matter of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, considering clause 14, and Matter of Certain Penitentiary Centers of Venezuela. Request to Expand Provisional Measures in favor of Marianela Sánchez Ortiz and family members regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 6, 2012, considering clause 18. 19 Cf. Case of Lysias Fleury. Request for provisional measures regarding Haiti. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 7, 2003, considering clause 5, and Matter of Certain Penitentiary 17