A.3. Information and observations regarding the situation of risk to the beneficiary 18. As to new developments that affect the situation of risk to the beneficiary, the representatives reported that “[o]n November 4, 2011 […] six or seven people […] wearing badges of the Technical Investigation Corps (C.T.I) of the Attorney General’s Office visited the premises of the Civic Committee of Human Rights of Meta [; they] proceeded to inspect the building where the Committee has its offices and to take photographs.” They also stated that “Islena Rey Rodríguez, who was not in the Committee’s office at that time, as soon as she was informed of that situation reported it to Police authorities [and] sent a written communication to the Head of the investigations department of the C.T.I, based in Villavicencio, asking him to confirm whether officers of that department had carried out this procedure and, if so, on what legal grounds.” According to the representatives, more than a month later, the Head of the C.T.I.’s investigations department responded in writing to the beneficiary, “assuring her that no official of that [d]ivision of the C.T.I. had carried out an inspection procedure and photographic survey of the Committee’s headquarters.” The representatives forwarded a copy of said communication. The attachments to the brief of the representatives include an official letter issued by the Attorney General’s Office informing the beneficiary that the persons who had presumably perpetrated the actions mentioned “were prosecuted […] and the case was sent to the Office of Assignations […] for its respective distribution.” 19. In this regard, on March 28, 2012 the State reported that during a follow-up meeting held on February 9 of that year “the beneficiary and the petitioners recounted the events of November 4, 2011” and stated that “the Attorney General’s Office report [ed] that it was carrying out all pertinent actions to investigate the facts [and that t]he the Inspector General’s Office […] agreed to carry out the relevant procedures to establish a special agency in [this] investigation.” 20. In its observations of July 13, 2012 the Inter-American Commission pointed out that “the State did not provide detailed information on the incident that occurred on November 4, 2011 [and that] it consider[ed] that [this] event w[as] worrying and expect [ed] the State to give the greatest priority to the investigation announced into this incident, since the timely identification of the source of risk and the implementation of appropriate measures to address could depend on this.” 21. Subsequently, in its brief of September 11, 2012, the State reported that the events of November 4, 2011 “related to the photographs taken at the Committee’s headquarters [, Office …t]he Attorney General’s Office […] reported that the 31st Local Prosecutor’s attached to the District Prosecutors’ Office of Villavicencio is conducting […] inquiries […] into the crime of violation of the rights to meet and freedom of association [and that] at present [it] is implementing a methodological program and [that] on July 13, 2012 a technical-legal committee met.” 22. The parties reported that several studies had been carried out and recommendations made regarding the situation at the office of the Civic Committee of Meta. Likewise, the representatives stated that in May 2011, a contractor from the Ministry of the Interior had arrived at the office, without prior notice, to carry out an assessment of the building and that on June 9, contractors from that institution appeared to install a bullet-proof door and other features, which was not accepted by the beneficiary since she was not present at the place and those activities were not previously coordinated with her. Subsequently those measures were not implemented and the beneficiary says she is not aware of the risk assessment carried out by the State. Colombia reported that “spaces have been provided in 7