concerning DAS wiretapping of the Avantel communications equipment provided by the Interior Ministry’s protection program to CCAJAR, as well as orders to collect information on precautionary measures ordered by the IACHR for CCAJAR.335 183. The State said that on April 7, 2011, the beneficiaries decided unilaterally to return four of the six vehicles assigned for their security as well as the bodyguard units that were part of the protection arrangements.336 The petitioners said that they did so because they realized that there were orders from military entities to infiltrate the drivers who were on their protection details.337 The purpose of that was to obtain information about their activities.338 The petitioners said that was the main reason why they decided to hand back the protection arrangements received.339 184. The petitioners added that in 2012, when CCAJAR moved to new offices the State failed to implement protection measures at those premises or at the beneficiaries’ homes. That was in spite of the fact that those measures had been agreed upon.340 185. According to information provided by the State, as of 2015, CCAJAR had six protection details consisting of one armor-plated vehicle and one bodyguard for Luis Guillermo Pérez Casas, Rafael Barrios Mendivil, Alirio Uribe Muñoz, María del Pilar Silva Garay, and Jomary Ortegón Osorio.341 D. The investigations carried out 186. In the proceedings before the IACHR the petitioners and the State provided information about a number of investigations opened in relation to the facts in this case. In this section, the Commission summarizes the information on those investigations.342 1. Investigations of the acts of aggression, threats, and surveillance 187. The Commission notes that the following investigations were advanced both by the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Units of the Office of the Attorney General (Unidad Nacional de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario de la Fiscalía General de la Nación) (hereinafter UNDH) and by Delegated Prosecution Units (Fiscalías Delegadas). 1.1. Cases before the UNDH i) Case UNDH 590 188. On September 13, 1999, the UNDH was assigned the investigation initiated ex officio at the request of the CTI in its brief No. 03706 of August 31, 1999, in which it asked that a criminal inquiry be opened into a Annex 5 to the petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 337 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. The communication refers to the article entitled CCAJAR Colectivo de Abogados devuelve esquema de protección al DAS [CCAJAR Lawyers Collective returns protection arrangements to DAS], April 12, 2011. http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/nuestro-trabajo/noticias-cajar/Colectivo-de-Abogados-Jose-Alvear,2893; Annex 5 to the petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. 338 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. The communication refers to the article entitled CCAJAR Colectivo de Abogados devuelve esquema de protección al DAS, April 12, 2011. http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/nuestro-trabajo/noticias-cajar/Colectivo-deAbogados-Jose-Alvear,2893 339 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. The communication refers to the article entitled CCAJAR Colectivo de Abogados devuelve esquema de protección al DAS, April 12, 2011. http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/nuestro-trabajo/noticias-cajar/Colectivo-deAbogados-Jose-Alvear,2893 340 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 341 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 342 Petitioners' communication of June 23, 2005; Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013; Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015; petitioners' communication of December 16, 2015; petitioners' communication of January 27, 2015; State's brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 335 336 35