The minor son of Dora Lucy Arias, a copy of whose passport and birth certificate were obtained.324 Paula Camila Romero Gutiérrez, the minor daughter of Soraya Gutiérrez, who was photographed, followed, and a copy of whose birth certificate was obtained.325 David, Miguel, and Luisa Uribe, the children of Alirio Uribe Muñoz, who were followed and photographed.326 Letters and a private diary belonging to David Uribe were “recovered” by DAS agents from the trash at his residence.327 178. In addition, the petitioners alleged that the following children were victims of threats and acts of harassment and were forced to go into exile with their families: Camilo Ernesto Pérez Niño and Katia Karina Pérez Niño, the children of Luis Guillermo Pérez Casas (see supra, pars. 64-66). Paula Camila Romero Gutiérrez, the daughter of Soraya Gutiérrez Argüello (see supra, pars. 79-81). 179. The petitioners said that none of these facts was properly investigated. The IACHR has no information about investigations of those allegations. 6. SECURITY measures adopted by the State in response to the situation of CCAJAR members 180. The Colombian State said that the police have continually conducted inspections and sweeps for CCAJAR members since 2000, as beneficiaries of precautionary measures granted by the IACHR.328 The State said that since 2001, in total, the following collective and individual measures have been implemented: (i) five “hard” arrangements with armor-plated vehicles, (ii) five bodyguards, (iii) three residences armor plated, (iv) one office armor plated, and (v) 18 Avantel communication devices.329 181. Colombia said that in addition to collective measures, it adopted a series of individual measures for the following CCAJAR members: Alirio Uribe Muñoz, Reinaldo Villalba Vargas, Eduardo Carreño Wilches, Soraya Gutiérrez Arguello, Rafael Barrios Mendivil, Dora Lucy Arias, Adriana Cuéllar Ramírez, Yessika Hoyos, and Jomary Ortegón Osorio.330 The State said that in the case of the lawyers Villalba and Carreño, they were provided with a “hard” arrangement that included an armor-plated vehicle, a bodyguard, and a communication device.331 The lawyers Uribe, Barrios, and Gutiérrez also had their residences armor plated.332 Finally, the State said that Ms. Cuéllar, Ms. Arias and Ms. Ortegón were each provided with a communication device.333 182. The State noted that in spite of the foregoing, the beneficiaries had not permitted a risk assessment to be carried out for them since 2009.334 For their part, the petitioners said that there are several pages Surveillance of members of CCAJAR and their families, section on minors. Annex 73 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 325 Surveillance of members of CCAJAR and their families, section on minors. Annex 73 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 326 Surveillance of members of CCAJAR and their families, section on minors. Annex 73 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 327 Surveillance of members of CCAJAR and their families, section on minors. Annex 73 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 328 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 329 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 330 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 331 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 332 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 333 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 334 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 324 34