b) “The State’s comments regarding the alleged obstruction of the police work for failing to appear at a meeting of which [Mr. Galdámez] was not informed demonstrates bad faith and contributes nothing toward effectively protecting the beneficiary and his family;” c) On January 19, 2011, another meeting was held to “again reach an agreement on the measures of protection to the benefit of Mr. José Luís Galdámez and his family.” Mr. Galdámez, his representatives, and State officials with the Human Rights Unit of the Secretariat of Security, the National Police of Honduras, and the National Office of Criminal Investigation participated in the meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Galdámez “emphasized the failure to execute the security measures that had been agreed upon in the meeting held on September 24, 2010, [and] reiterated the need for funds to pay for private security.” State authorities “proposed the appointment of a police official at his house […] for the protection of […] Wendy Waleska Orellana and Mr. Galdámez's children from 6:00 to 22:00, seven days a week, as well as the implementation of the patrols previously agreed upon and the setting up of a direct telephone line to the Chief of Police of District 1-3 and District 1-2.” Mr. Galdámez and his representatives accepted these proposals pending a response from the Secretary of Security regarding the hiring of private security; d) At present “a police officer is stationed in front of [the] house […] of [Mr. Galdámez]” and a “patrol car appears in the morning whose purpose is to escort the beneficiary from his house to work; however, there is a lack of compliance regarding the nighttime patrol, as it has been carried out only sporadically.” The effective implementation of this patrol during “the evening hours is vital to protecting Mr. Galdámez’ life and personal integrity, as it is a time when the risk faced by the beneficiary increases; [indeed,] the attack suffered by the beneficiary on September 14 took place late at night”; and e) “The progress in the investigation into the facts that gave rise to the measures […] is perhaps the factor that most clearly allows for an effective evaluation of the risk to which the beneficiaries of the precautionary measures are subjected.” Though the State described some of the steps taken to investigate the “attack suffered by Mr. Galdámez on September 14, 2010, they do not indicate the existence of any progress toward establishing the identities of those responsible; thus, the risk of the beneficiaries suffering other incidents impacting their lives and personal integrity is permanent and serious.” The report submitted by the State “does not evaluate the particularities of the events, nor of the circumstances and the context of risk in which Mr. Galdámez and his family find themselves.” 10. that: The brief of February 9, 2011 and its appendices in which the State indicated a) On January 19, 2011, a meeting was held at which the following people were present: Mr. José Luís Galdámez, two of his representatives, and eight State officials from the Human Rights Unit of the Secretariat of Security, the National Police of Honduras, and the Office of the Special Public Prosecutor of Human Rights; b) In that meeting Mr. Galdámez stated that “The security measures agreed upon in [the] meeting [held on September 24, 2010] are not being implemented, and consequently[,] the Inter-American Court […] issued an Order on […]December 8