18. The State presented a note to the Secretariat of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights on July 2, 2013, wherein it reported that the beneficiaries of these provisional measures stated that “they wished [that] monitoring be done by way of an official cell phone as a safety measure in their favor.” Notwithstanding, by way of a brief of August 16, 2013, Argentina noted that, pursuant to the Ministry of security of the Nation, the measure requested by the beneficiaries “did not effectively protect these persons, when the distance separating the home of the beneficiaries with the closest national security force delegation did not allow a fast enough reaction to ensure the protection of [Mr.] Flores and [Ms. Vera] González.” 22 Notwithstanding, after having explained “the scope of Law No. 25.764 [Law of National Protection for Witnesses and the Accused] and the measures of special protection that could possibly be applied in the case, Mr. Flores refused to join [said program,] as well as other measures of protection, aside from expressing his desire to remain in the city of Comodoro Rivadavia […].” Subsequently, according to the State, Mr. Flores and Ms. Vera González had requested that the “proposed measures be granted to them, […] regarding collaboration in exiting the country for employment purposes until the case is settled.” As a consequence, “it requested the opinion of the Ministry of Security of the Nation, in regard to the viability of the measure of protection requested by the beneficiaries.” 19. The representatives informed the Court that, “after requiring protection of the rights to life and integrity […] of Mr. Flores and Ms. González, they] have suffered escalating intimidation and attacks[,] and they think that it is because those persons whom they filed the complaint against are the same as those who are appointed to ‘protect’ them.” Moreover, they noted that “on May 7, 2013, the […] Commissioner of the First Police Station of Comodoro Rivadavia in 2003, [who is allegedly being prosecuted in relation to the forced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres], posted in front of Mr. Flores’s home in a red Ranger truck, next to another person, a man[, …] for approximately three hours, since 8:30pm until 12 pm [sic].” Moreover, the representatives stated that on May 15, 2013, “the First Corporal Marine of the Police Province of Chubut showed up at the home of Mr. Flores and Ms. Gonzalez[, and…] told them ‘he had something for them to read and to check off the corresponding location.’” According to them, the official had told Mr. Flores that he must check off whether he “accepted” the protection scheme “or not,” without explaining “the type of protection offered, nor who would carry out the task,” reason for which Mr. Flores did not sign the document. Notwithstanding, by way of the brief of October 18, 2013, the representatives noted that, due to a “conflict of interests,” they would not continue to represent neither Mr. Flores nor Ms. Verá González in the current provisional measures proceeding. 20. For its part, the Commission noted that “from the information available, it is evident that the specific measures of protection in favor of [the] beneficiaries are not being implemented, reason for which [ ... it] expressed concern regarding their security situation.” Furthermore, it considered that "the argument presented by the State” that rejected the request made by the beneficiaries for cellular phones in order to better contact police officers “is not a justification for denying said means of protection, along with other means, to contribute to a comprehensive improvement of the security situation.” Thus, it noted that the State indicated that it is analyzing the viability of the request by the beneficiaries to exit the country due to employment offers. It also noted that “the alleged threats and harassment that led the Court to grant and maintain these provisional measures involves the police agency of Chubut,” reason for which it stressed “the importance of [...] mechanisms between the State, the beneficiaries, and their representative [ ... ].” Moreover, it noted that “[i]n regard to these types of agreements, it is necessary to explore diverse alternatives and that sufficient information be offered to accommodate the needs of the beneficiaries, as well as those that instill a greater sense of 22 Note of DDHH N° 152/12 of August 7, 2013, Ministry of security (case file on provisional measures, folio 6754). 9