process of installing [the] technical security system[s] in the place of residence of the beneficiary and the CEDEHM; c. regarding the review of the code blue system (emergency buttons), it affirmed that on February 22, 2013, the review of the equipment was completed by the Government of the state of Chihuahua. The review indicated that the button works properly, and it was determined that it would be reviewed biweekly thereafter. The same took place with regards to the security camera, as it was possible to observe it is functioning properly and the review of this device was recorded on DVD; d. the necessary arrangements have been carried out for the delivery of the radio communications equipment with an integrated panic button, and therefore, it would report on compliance with this measure as appropriate; e. an official letter (FEAVOD7116/2013) was communicated to the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua, in which the Director General of the State Police was instructed to provide escort services at the request of the beneficiary; f. the beneficiary “has been” in contact with the Secretariat to the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua, and it noted that, following the attacks against the CEDEHM facilities that took place on April 4, the official immediately visited the center and facilitated the necessary precautions, which included the installation of safety glass; g. the operational activities of continuous patrols in the vicinity of the CEDEHM have been carried out “pursuant to the terms agreed upon with the beneficiary”; h. the determination as beneficiary of the provisional measures has been communicated to the “relevant authorities,” and the corresponding official letters have been delivered to Ms. Castro Rodríguez, and i. the investigation was being handled by the local Public Prosecutor’s Office and would be discussed in depth at the next monitoring session, convened, pursuant to the August 23, 2013 brief, to take place within the first week of September of 2013. 11. The representatives stated that, on April 4, 2013, “the CEDEHM staff found the windows on one side of the building shattered; […] caused by six hits […] with stones, ceramics, and asphalt […] that reached the furniture in the interiors of the offices […] the mechanisms of immediate response […], which [had been] installed in the interior and exterior of the facility, were activated; however, there was no response” from the authorities (Municipal Police), due, allegedly, to system failures. They added that the events occurred two days after meeting with members of the State on the implementation of the precautionary measures granted by the Commission in favor of other defenders. As such, they indicated that the events were “a clear attack against the work performed by the [CEDEHM] in the climate of impunity that exists in the State.” 12. Similarly, by communication dated July 19, 2013, the representatives noted that the information presented by the State was “insufficient as to the plan of implementation and failed to list the progress on some aspects that are essential for the prevention of future attacks.” Moreover, they warned that most of the agreements reached at the work meeting on April 23, 2013 were in the stage of implementation, and that there has not been a significant effort to reduce the risk faced by the beneficiary. In a precise and timely manner, they commented on each one of the agreements reached at the aforementioned work meeting as follows: a. they hoped that the agreements discussed would materialize sooner rather than later since the State had pledged to present a proposal for the outreach campaign on the recognition of the work of human rights defenders “by no later than May 23, 4