information provided by the beneficiary is incomplete, given that “[her] presence [is] required […] as well as some information that [she could provide] to the authorities”; 6. After the public hearing, the State reported that it took steps to hold meetings with high-ranking State’s authorities within the shortest time possible. In this regard, it held a meeting on March 5, 2012, in which the Republic’s Attorney General and the SubSecretariat of Security expressed to the representatives that they took the necessary steps and calls to arrange the meeting with the high-ranking State’s authorities, thus demonstrating its good faith in resolving the instant case. In addition, the General Prosecutor agreed on a hearing to be held on March 8, 2012, which the representatives did not attend. 7. The State further alleged that it agreed with the representatives on the need to implement a comprehensive program for the protection of human rights defenders. In this sense, there have been rapprochements with State institutions and non-governmental organizations to prepare a proposal for the program. However, this program will not be an obstacle for the immediate implementation of effective protection measures for the beneficiary. Consequently, the State determined that it falls upon the beneficiary to decide which measures are suitable, “either by assigning government or private personnel […] to provide security or through the acquisition of some type of technological security or monitoring device.” 8. In the communication of May 30, 2012, the State informed that it had effectively complied with the car or motorcycle patrolling outside the residence and work place of the beneficiary. In addition, it indicated that “it [had] request[ed] to the beneficiary or her representatives to provide a clearer reference as to the type of measures requested, and to confirm or establish new timetable and days, if necessary, for the patrolling and police presence in the area.” Finally, the State informed that it was making the necessary arrangements to hold the meeting requested” with the President of the Republic. 9. By means of different communications, the representatives indicated, inter alia, that: a) The implementation of the provisional measures has been held up by obstacles such as distrust of police and the occurrence of at least five incidents between October 2010 and August 2011, which have affected the safety of the beneficiary and which were denounced before the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor and communicated to the Court; b) From September 2010 and until the date of the public hearing, the State had not effectively complied with the car and motorcycle patrolling rounds so agreed. In addition, these had been sporadic, and “with the sole objective of having someone sign the logbook kept by the authorities, only as a mere formality,” and c) No progress has been made in the investigation of the threats. 10. After the public hearing, the representatives also indicated that the patrolling of the headquarters of the “Visitación Padilla” foundation had been replaced by “police presence during a few hours per day,” which affects the beneficiary’s work, given that the users of the organization are afraid to enter the institution. They further alleged that it is necessary for the State to implement, as soon as possible, the patrolling of Visitación Padilla 4