station had said it was impossible to send a replacement "because they were short of staff."119 According to Mrs. Villaseñor, the replacement was sent on October 9.120 102. On March 7, 2002, the Human Rights Ombudsman issued a resolution regarding Mrs. Villaseñor's complaint about the situation referred to in the foregoing paragraph.121 The Ombudsman argued as follows: Based on analysis of the complaint, inquiries undertaken, and reports received, it was established that the Civil National Police Department for Protection and Security Services omitted to send (...) María Eugenia Villaseñor Velarde, in a timely fashion, a replacement for the policeman providing her with security (...) who was on leave, arguing that it was shortstaffed. That meant that the aforementioned judge was at risk during his absence, even though the situation was subsequently corrected. (...) The administrative response was detrimental to María Eugenia Villaseñor's (...) interests (...). The resolution singles out the personnel section chief of the Civil National Police Department for Protection and Security Services - SERPROSE - (...) as responsible for not having foreseen and covered the gap left by the leave of absence (for vacation time) granted to a member of the above-mentioned judge's security detachment. (...) Recommends that the Director General of the Civilian National Police (...) issue instructions to the aforementioned police department to coordinate their personnel's leave in such a way as to ensure that persons needing to be protected are not suddenly bereft of that service (...).122 103. The State pointed out that in the conversation over the phone with COPREDEH on February 28, 2004, Mrs. Villaseñor stated that the precautionary measures were proving effective and that the security guards were providing her with the necessary security.123 Mrs. Villaseñor did not deny having made that statement on the date indicated by the State. 104. Mrs. Villaseñor told the Civilian National Police that in 2009 the Human Rights Ombudsman had requested that the protection measures be continued "given the positions she holds and the risk it entails."124 105. On October 19, 2012, at COPREDEH's request, the Deputy Director-General of Operations of the Civilian National Police conducted an assessment of the risks to which Mrs. Villaseñor was exposed.125 According to the Minutes No. 089-2012 of the Directorate General of the Civilian National Police, Mrs. Villaseñor was interviewed and made the following statement: That she served as a lower court judge from 1989 to 1992, (...) from 1992 to 20090 as a judge on the Court of Appeals, and from March 2010 until the present as Supervisor General of Courts. That because of the threats against her (...) they granted her the above-mentioned precautionary measure (...) As of that date, she has been given personal security protection 119 Official letter 3145-2001, dated October 3, 2001. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of Friday, October 5, 2001. 120 Petitioners’ communication of Wednesday, May 07, 2014. 121 Resolution issued by the Human Rights Ombudsman on March 7, 2002. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of May 122 Resolution issued by the Human Rights Ombudsman on March 7, 2002. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of May 123 State’s communication of February 28, 2005. 7, 2014. 7, 2014. Minutes No. 089/-2012 of the Directorate-General of the Civilian National Police. Attached to the State’s communication of October 9, 2015. 124 125 Minutes No. 089/-2012 of the Directorate-General of the Civilian National Police. Attached to the State’s communication of October 9, 2015. 17