10 4. On the efforts made to reopen the Human Rights Civic Committee of Meta 35. The State pointed out that, since September 2008, the Human Rights Civic Committee of Meta has an office in the city of Villavicencio, “all its members [carry out] the activities in there" and it maintains dialogue and provides cooperation with the Law Enforcement Agency in order to [carry out] these activities.” It expressed being “willing" to organize an act “to complement the entire process of guarantees the Committee had had to implement its activities.” The State proposed, at the hearing, to organize “an act of political support” in the “presence of the central Government authorities" by February 26, 2010 in the city of Villavicencio, with the "participation of the Delegates of the Municipalities who are mentioned in the proposals of the petitioners and beneficiaries and in the presence of all the local authorities that they also proposed.” 36. The representatives pointed out that the act they propose “is a public and political act, which reaffirms the serious commitment made by the highest-ranking authorities of the Colombian State to respect and legitimate the work done by the Committee in Meta, to avoid the repetition of similar acts, "to prevent people saying that the members of the Committee are members of the guerrilla or that they collaborate with them" and "therefore, to avoid jeopardizing their work.” 37. The Commission mentioned that the obligation to reopen the Meta Committee requires minimum guarantees from the State proposal, “precisely, due to the attack” to Mrs. Rey, “for the intimidating effects” such fact had and to “avoid the stigmatization to which they were subject”, which caused the closure of the Committee for a while. * * * 38. The representatives indicated that Mrs. Rey was convened by the Army members to inform her "that the law enforcement personnel would have, apparently, intelligence information according to which the lawyer that works for the [Human Rights Civic] Committee in Meta is linked to the guerrilla.” The representatives considered that this “reaffirms the facts” that gave rise to the adoption of these provisional measures five years ago, when "the President of the Committee was murdered by people who did intelligence jobs for the law enforcement agency" within a context “in which the members of the Committee” were “related to the guerrilla.” They considered that “this is very serious, since it is common in Colombia for the people who work in areas where there are presence, in fact, of guerrilla groups to be associated with those groups” though what they really do is to represent and speak on behalf of the communities that are affected by the presence of guerrilla groups.” Finally, they indicated that “they are afraid that this information will increase, even more, the risk of the members of the Committee and that they will not be allowed to do their work.” 39. Regarding the meeting of Mrs. Rey with the Army members, the State considered that it was not admissible to interpret the foregoing as “evidence that the State is suggesting that human rights defenders are guerrilleros, or that they are involved in the rebellion.” The State indicated that it would be “a transparent act” “to trust her”, inasmuch as “she is being warned of a piece of information according to a State’s agency and that it could be wrong, but that it will have to be verified.”