whether military patrols had taken place that day and in that location, or whether it had vehicles with the characteristics reported. 254 153. Based on the facts described, the Court considers that, as of December 20, 2003, Mrs. B.A. and members of her family found themselves in a situation of real and imminent danger to their personal integrity. In particular, the Court notes that on November 26, 2003, she reported having been threatened due to her work and that in 2004 she reported a new threat (supra para. 150); that in the days following Mr. A.A.’s death she suffered constant intimidation by groups of unknown individuals who were heavily armed and who appeared at night (supra paras. 151 and 152); that she was a human rights defender; and that her work and activities at the time of the events involved the defense of human rights (supra para. 132). All this occurred in a context of vulnerability for human rights defenders in Guatemala (supra para. 78). Taking into account the circumstances surrounding the facts of this case, as well as the specific situation facing Mrs. B.A., the Court considers that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the situation of risk in which she found herself could be specifically linked to the fact that she was a human rights defender and with her work and activities at the time of the events, which placed her in a situation of special vulnerability. 154. In this case, there is also evidence that the State had prior knowledge of a specific risk to the personal integrity of Mrs. B.A. and her family. Indeed, Mrs. B.A. reported the threats she received in 2003 and 2004 to the Public Prosecution Service, the competent authority responsible for adopting the appropriate measures in this case. In addition, the presumed acts of intimidation against her and her family, which occurred during the nine days after Mr. A.A.’s death, were reported precisely at the beginning of those nine days, to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, which informed the National Civil Police of Escuintla, and by the municipal Mayor. Likewise, on repeated occasions during the five months after Mr. A.A.’s death, B.A. informed the Public Prosecution Service about the complaint she had filed on November 26, 2003, as well as about the presumed acts of intimidation that occurred one month prior to his death and during the nine days afterwards. During those five months she also informed agents of the National Civil Police of Escuintla and of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman about the threat she had received in 2003 and the complaint filed on November 26, 2003, before the Public Prosecution Service (supra paras. 150 to 152). 155. On this point, and with regard to the complaints reported to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman and the municipal Mayor, the Court recalls that State authorities who are aware of a situation of special risk have a responsibility to decide or determine whether the person being threatened or harassed requires protection measures, or to refer the matter to the competent authority for that purpose and to offer the person at risk timely information on the measures available. The assessment of whether or not a person requires protection measures and what those measures should be, is the State’s obligation, and should not be limited to requiring the victim to apply to “the competent authorities”, without knowing exactly which authority is best able to address his situation, since it is the State’s responsibility to establish measures of coordination between its institutions and officials for that purpose. 255 156. With respect to the measures adopted by the State, in the first place, the Court finds that, despite the complaints filed before the Public Prosecution Service and the information reported to it on several occasions (supra paras. 150 and 152), the latter did not adopt any measures to protect Mrs. B.A. and her family, and did not inquire about their situation or the level of risk to which they were exposed. Therefore, the action by the Public Prosecution Service was neither adequate nor effective in counteracting the risk to the safety of those individuals. Moreover, the Court deems it necessary to refer to the response by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, the National Civil Police and the municipal Mayor, to the risk existing during the nine days following Mr. A.A.’s death, once they had knowledge of it. The Court notes that, even though the Departmental Assistant of the Ombudsman’s Office asked different units of the National Civil Police to provide security measures for Mrs. B.A. and her family on December 22 and 23, 2004 (supra para. 254 Cf. Letter of March 28, 2005, from the Minister of National Defense to the Departmental Assistant of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman of Escuintla (File of attachments to submission brief, page 923). 255 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Relatives v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 201, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 127. 48