work meeting [with the representatives].” In regard to the measures that have not yet been agreed upon by the representatives, it expressed “its commitment and willingness to continue with the pertinent negotiations and to promptly reach an agreement regarding the handling of the matter.” 17. The representatives noted that the State, upon taking on the recommendations proposed by Peace Brigades in its report, this would “allow for […] the creation of a comprehensive security plan that in a preventive manner mitigates the gravity and urgency of the risk and creates the conditions necessary to avoid, as little as possible, incidents associated with the security of the beneficiaries and their family.” They indicated that “the proposals of the State do not address the pressing needs facing the beneficiaries, according to the assessment prepared by Peace Brigades.” To that extent, the creation of security conditions continued to fall on the beneficiaries and their representatives. They indicated that the state “has failed to report [...] that the implementation of those measures not covered by its proposal remains pending[, as well as] the appropriateness of those, which being covered, do not meet the specifications and the purpose of the evaluation of risk undertaken.” They confirmed that “in terms of the security infrastructure for the home of the beneficiaries [...] the State presented [specific] equipment [...] on February 8, 2011.” They added that several of the measures proposed by the State have not been accepted, without there being a counteroffer by the State representatives to date. 18. Likewise, they confirmed that the State gave the requested cellular phones on March 8, 2009, one of which was stolen from the sister of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, to which they requested “that the stolen radio phone be returned and the necessary change of number be done for the two phones that continue to work, in order to ensure the security of the beneficiaries.” They indicated that the State had not complied with the request to install a satellite telephone in the home of the family members of the beneficiary and that “for her, the isolation of her father and mother in her native community, increases the risk and founded fear. [One] of the satellite telephones would allow Mrs. Rosendo Cantú to monitor the situation regarding the security of her parents and family.” They specified that “her family, [although they are not beneficiaries of the present measures,] have suffered threats and intimidations, which are intended to impact the search for justice that [Mrs.] Rosendo Cantu has lived for a duration of […] eight years. They noted that the conduct of the State in regard to the installation of the satellite telephone demonstrates reluctance to comply with this measure 19. They concluded that the actions that to date the State has carried out “are administrative actions that consist of the submission of two official letters, and […] it has provided specific infrastructure, which is only part of that requested. [Nevertheless,] it has not implemented actions that remove the administrative or financial obstacles that would allow for prompt specific actions or to pay for the expenses to guarantee the security of the beneficiaries. Based on the foregoing, they anticipate a summons by the State for a follow-up meeting, recalling that the last meeting was carried out in July 2010.” 20. The Commission expressed “the need for the State to adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and integrity of the beneficiaries as promptly as possible and the importance of the participation of representatives in the design of its implementation.” It added that “the design of the sufficient and appropriate provisional measures for [her] protection […]should not be subject to obtaining resources from the Mexican State, and [should be implemented] as soon as possible.” It valued the 7