9 beneficiaries.” Consequently, the representatives regard the risk motivating the grant of provisional measures in this case to continue in full force, for which reason they request that the measures continue. 19. In its most recent observations, the Commission declared its concern over the closure of the disciplinary investigation (supra Considering 17) and requested that the Court order the State to produce updated and detailed information regarding the harassments aimed at the Pinzón López family by third parties or others who claim to work for the State (supra Considering 18). 20. The Court acknowledges the recent events as told by the representatives of the beneficiaries Sara Paola Linzón López and Luz Mery Pinzón López, with particular emphasis on the alleged threats against the beneficiaries which may have been carried out by State security agents (supra Considering 17, 18). However, the beneficiaries and their representatives are nonetheless required to provide all necessary collaborative efforts in order to bring about effective implementation of these provisional measures. The Court exhorts that the State present a consensual risk assessment study for the beneficiaries. For this study, it is essential that the beneficiaries’ whereabouts be known and that they and their representatives collaborate in data collection efforts for the purposes of this study. 4) Regarding Luís Guillermo Pérez 21. The State pointed out the representatives’ report in April 2010 that Mr. Luís Guillermo Pérez does not presently live in the country. Furthermore, the State argued that it has not received from the beneficiary or the representatives “statements [indicating] new threats” against his life or right to humane treatment, nor has it received any requests for security measures in his favor. The State is of the position that effective implementation of provisional measures is subject to the condition that the beneficiary reside in the territory of the State that has been ordered to provide such measures. The State, finding the conditions of extreme gravity and urgency lacking in Mr. Pérez’s case, requested an evaluation of the need for keeping provisional measures active in his favor. 22. Regarding Mr. Luís Guillermo Pérez and his family members, the representatives reported that they left the country due to the threats and persecution he received for his participation as an attorney in civil proceedings in this case. In their last brief of July 29, 2010, the representatives reported that Mr. Pérez, who was Secretary of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and a witness before this Court, decided to return to Colombia as a member of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyer Collective on July 30, 2010. In addition, the representatives reported that at the end of October 2009, the beneficiary’s residence in Belgium was raided, and thieves stole “an external memory device where he had stored all of his personal and professional information [dating from] the last ten years.” They also reported that “on April 22, 2010, an individual who claimed to be speaking in the name of the president of Colombia Álvaro Uribe Vélez telephoned the home of Mr. Pérez’s mother in Brussels while he was away on a trip” and stated that “they wanted to know about the little monkey” and that “soon [he] would receive news from [the caller].” They also reported that on March 25, 2010, during a meeting in the offices of the Federal Parliament of Belgium, Mr. Pérez requested to the Director of the DAS that he unseal the intelligence information collected on him and his family in which “[they] attempt to link [him] with a guerrilla group, first as a perpetrator of the ‘legal war’ waged by the ELN [National Liberation Army] and later as a member of the ‘support wing and the psycho-political war of the FARC