4 a) Mr. Ricardo Alberto Iglesias Herrera, as pointed out by the State, decided “not to accept the protection offered for it consisted of being accompanied by State agents, as he considered this an invasion of privacy”. Accordingly, he expressed his agreement with only having direct contact with a person with sufficient authority within the National Civil Police who can react immediately in case of emergency, and who had already been appointed by the State; b) concerning the State’s reference to the inquiry opened in file No. 3087-UDV06, by the Crimes Against Life Unit of the Subregional Office of Santa Tecla, that Mr. Iglesias Herrera has not been informed of any steps taken or of the results of the same. The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic has not made any progress in the investigations to determine the origin and motives of the alleged facts against Mr. Iglesias Herrera, nor has it identified the responsible parties. The case is completely inactive, which demonstrates the State’s lack of interest in complying with the measures ordered; and c) they referred to the provisional measures ordered in favor of the other beneficiaries. In this connection, the representatives stated that they had offered a proposal regarding the implementation of the protective measures, and had not received a response from the State on December 7, 2006 as had been agreed, because they were informed that a response could not be given on that date. Since then, no communication has been received from the State concerning the proposal, nor has any protective mechanism been established. The beneficiaries and their representatives had “agreed to assume the risks of not having protection until a proposal was approved” in the understanding that the State would comply within the period of time agreed upon for this purpose; for this reason, as of that date “the risks to life and to personal integrity of the beneficiaries of the protective measures are the exclusive responsibility of the State [ … ].” 11. The testimony given by Mr. Pedro José Cruz Rodríguez in the public hearing held on January 24, 2007 at the seat of the Court, at which time he stated that he lives in Guatemala City and that he was felt “fearful [ … ] because he was providing testimony before [ … ] the Court.” 12. The Court is awaiting the observations of the Commission, the deadline for which was 1 February 2007. CONSIDERING: 1. That El Salvador has been a State party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978 and, in accordance with Article 62 of the same, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention stipulates that, in “cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, with respect to cases not yet submitted to its consideration, at the request of the Commission, order whatever provisional measures it deems pertinent. 3. That with regard to this matter, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: 1. At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request