10 vulnerability regarding the absence of any [State] investigation […],” by virtue of which the Commission argued its request for provisional measures. 14. The communication of June 23, 2010, and its annex, whereby the InterAmerican Commission “transmit[ted]” to the Court a written document from the ICJP that “drew the Commission’s and Court’s attention to new facts alleging threats, harassment, and plans to strike against the life and limb” of ICJP members. In this communication, the Commission signaled that it considered this new information “provided by the potential beneficiaries to confirm yet again the information that had already been available to the Court in the request for provisional measures, as well as previous communications, [according to which] the [ICJP] members find themselves defenseless in a serious situation while their lives and right to humane treatment remain at risk of imminent harm.” The Commission again stressed its request that “provisional measures be adopted in the present case.” 15. The letter from the Secretariat of June 30, 2010 whereby, among other things, the Court requested that the State present its relevant observations on the information proffered by the Inter-American Commission (supra Having Seen 14). 16. The letter from the Secretariat of July 6, 2010 whereby, at the State’s request, the Secretariat referred back to the Inter-American Commission’s communication of June 7, 2010 (supra Having Seen 10) and assigned a new deadline for the State to present its observations. 17. The brief of July 30, 2010 whereby the State referred to the communications of the Commission dated June 7 and 23, 2010 (supra Having Seen 10, 14). In particular, the State noted that: a) “currently, [ICJP] members have at their disposal material means of protection that to date are in effect and have been implemented by the Protection Program, under the auspices of the Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Justice and the Interior.” The State specified that individual and collective measures3 have been adopted, for which “it does not share the petitioners’ assertion that the protective measures are not being implemented in an effective manner.” The State also highlighted that “some inconveniences or obstacles in implementing these previously-approved measures are attributable to the selfsame beneficiaries and petitioners of the precautionary measures, who in some instances do not submit [...] the necessary documentation in a timely fashion to enable [their] implementation.”4 3 In particular, three armored vehicles with one extra vehicle pending; four late model vehicles; a means of river transport, which “is pending until the ICJP presents quotes as to the supply contract for this service”; two means of satellite communication; 26 means of cellular communication; 10 Avantel communication devices; three supports for temporary relocation, although this measure is no longer valid; four domestic air tickets; three closed-circuit televisions, video cameras, color monitors with VCR, a video intercom, and two magnetic locks. 4 In this regard, the State indicated that “on February 16, 2010, the members of ICJP were informed that the persons they had proposed as ‘trusted bodyguards,’ did not meet the objective requirements for employment, since even though their resumes indicated that they had experience as drivers, they had no expertise as bodyguards.” Subsequently, the State emphasized that “this is on account of the nature of the Program [of Protection of the Ministry of Justice and the Interior], whose goal is to protect the beneficiary, and it is therefore essential to deal with people who have proven experience in matters of protection and security.” As an alternative, on May 3, 2010, “five resumes were sent to [the ICJP] for bodyguards from the private security company VISE LTDA that were to be studied and