the Commission and the representatives have not presented recent specific detailed information on the existence of new acts of harassment or threats against them, apart from those that were on record when the last Order was issued on September 2, 2010. 6. In this regard, the State indicated that it had not received specific requests for protection from the beneficiaries or their representatives and that it is unaware of their location. The State repeated its request to lift the provisional measures. 1.2. Situation of Viviana Barrera 7. The representatives stated that a bus owned by the beneficiary had been set on fire in bizarre circumstances and that she had continued to receive strange or threatening telephone calls. 8. The State indicated that, even though the representatives declared that they had reported this fact to the Prosecutor General’s Office, they had not provided information about the complaint filed or additional information in this regard. Moreover, the State mentioned that, even though the representatives had announced that Viviana Barrera would be in Bogota by the end of October and that she would advise whether she would like to submit to another assessment of her risk and level of threat, it was unaware of her location or of her intention to undergo a further assessment. 9. The Commission emphasized that Viviana Barrera had stated that she continued to receive telephone calls that could fall within the context of the previous acts of intimidation and threats. 1.3. Situation of Sara Paola Pinzón López, Luz Mery Pinzón López and their next of kin 10. The representatives advised that, in August 2010, strange events had occurred owing to the presence of unknown individuals in the home of Luz Mery and Sara Paola Pinzon in Villavicencio. 11. The State asserted that the petitioners had only referred to the specific situation of the beneficiaries Luz Mery Pinzon and Sara Paola Pinzon. The State also indicated that, since no information had been provided regarding the beneficiaries Esther Pinzon Lopez and Maria Teresa Pinzon Lopez, who are members of the same family group, the State assumed that no situations of risk had taken place that might affect their life and personal integrity. 12. Regarding alleged acts of harassment against Luz Mery Pinzon by a former official of the Ombudsman’s Office, on September 29, 2010, she advised the Court that “the lawyer Hernan Zapata Paez ha[d] never harassed or threatened her, or forced her to receive advisory services, [and that,] on the contrary, [he had been] kind and respectful of [her] decision, because, at the end of the meeting [… she ] told him that [she] was not interested and [had] not received any more telephone calls from him. In 5 Nadia Marina Valencia Sanmiguel, Yinda Adriana Valencia Sanmiguel, Johana Marina Valencia Sanmiguel, Roland Andr��s Valencia Sanmiguel, Ronald Mayiber Valencia Sanmiguel and Marina San Miguel Duarte. 6 Esther Pinzón López and María Teresa Pinzón López 4