3 (i) “[It was] proposed to the representatives […] that the institutions responsible for ‘identifying and establishing differences in the degree of danger to Mrs. Pérez Torres and her family should be the Attorney General’s Office, the Secretariat of Public Security of the State of Chihuahua, and/or the Federal Secretariat of Public Security; and if [the representatives] disagreed with this proposal, they should indicate a public institution other than those mentioned.” Also, “it was made clear to them that once this had been accomplished, it would be possible to determine the methodology and timing to draw up the report requested by the Court, the profile of those who would prepare it, and the appropriate place for this; and they were also advised that they would be provided with the necessary security measures during the process of preparing the report”; (ii) During this meeting, the representatives advised “that Peace Brigades International had rejected [Mrs.] Pérez Torres’s request for assistance and reiterated the total lack of interest […] of the municipal, state, and federal public security forces in providing her with measures of protection and security”; (iii) “Regarding the request for paid, official spaces in which material could be placed with information on women’s rights and the situation in Ciudad Juárez, with a content approved by [Mrs.] Pérez Torres, the State noted [...] that this request was not in keeping with the nature of […] a provisional measure, and [the representatives] had not explained how this action could prevent possible unlawful conduct against [her].” 6. In addition, in its report of November 5, 2009, the State indicated that, taking into account that Mrs. Pérez Torres and her family had advised that they had requested asylum in another country, it was asking the Court to “[r]ecognize that the decision adopted by [the beneficiaries] to request the Government of another country for asylum is a decision that, based on the information that the beneficiary has presented to the Court […] lacks any basis or justification.” In addition, in its most recent brief of May 5, 2011, the State emphasized that “a long time (19 months) has passed during which neither the Inter-American Commission nor the beneficiaries have presented elements to demonstrate the existence of a threat and/or a real and imminent danger to them sufficient to justify the measures [in their] favor.” Furthermore, it noted that “the measures offered by the State had been rejected […] by Mrs. Pérez Torres’ representatives, thus preventing an evaluation of their effectiveness.” Accordingly, the State asked the Court to order that the provisional measures in this matter be lifted.” 7. For her part, in her brief of September 29, 2009, Mrs. Pérez Torres referred to some of the specific measures that had not been put in place at that date, indicating that: (i) Although the State had agreed to send her emergency numbers that could be used 24 hours a day on a year-round basis, it later indicated that “they were the common emergency numbers for the general public, but that it would provide other specific contact numbers.” However, “[at that] date, the State ha[d] not provided them”; (ii) She had “decided not to file a criminal complaint before either the local or federal courts” because she has determined that this would not be desirable as it would increase the danger she faced “because […], in the actual circumstances in Mexico and in a context of impunity, the opening of a formal investigation into threats is a risk factor”;