7 c) The Police “have other demands in relation to citizens protection” and d) The National Police cannot include on its payroll people who do not meet the requirements or the selection process of said institution, which is why it is not possible to satisfy the demand of the beneficiaries in the sense of appointing bodyguards, of their trust, to provide the service. 22. Based on the foregoing, the State alleges it had informed the beneficiaries of two protection proposals: one, “with agents selected by the Police (without bodyguards of trust) [or, the other one, by means of personnel] hired by a private security company where bodyguards of trust are able to participate.” In case of accepting “that a private company [with experience in use of weapons, duly regulated and controlled by the Superintendency of Surveillance and Private Security] provides the services, the State indicated, as follows: a) that “it [would] keep being responsible according to its obligation” in “all the activities carried out during said delegated operation which, also, is jointly administered in coordination with security bodies"; b) that it would implement "mechanisms to supervise the operation of these schemes with the participation of the beneficiaries", and c) that the Attorney General’s Office [would] participate in such supervisory mechanism “to provide the beneficiaries with full guarantees.” The State expressed that “if the beneficiaries request for bodyguards of their trust”, the respective resumes “could be considered in a private company”, which is not possible for the police body. 23. The State specified that this scheme “must be complemented” with “the Police and the Army whenever necessary” to “coordinate [the] services.” It also alleged that, in the last year, "it has subcontracted the implementation of 210 schemes with private companies", in those cases where the beneficiaries have voluntarily requested so. It argued that “it is totally inaccurate” to indicate that the demobilized paramilitary groups are somehow related to these private security companies, taking into account that the proposal would refer to "bodyguards of trust suggested by the beneficiaries" and that in Colombia, the law "does not allow the demobilized people to carry weapons.” 24. The representatives pointed out that, “there are certain doubts" about this proposal and that the beneficiary Islena Rey "has not been consulted about these options.” They further alleged that the proposal made could mean that “the State responsibility has diminished due to the delegation" and that there are complaints according to which the demobilized people have been offered the possibility of joining these private security companies. For this reason, they requested information on this aspect “which affects the protection offered” and the guarantee for the people who are at risk. 25. Taking into account that the representatives have been informed, at the hearing, on the proposals and arguments presented by the State as to the new security scheme, the Court requests them to present observations in the term established in the corresponding operative paragraph of this Order and, in case of not accepting said proposals, present another choice. 2.2. On the protective measures in favor of the beneficiary Mariela Duarte de Giraldo 26. The State informed that police patrols have been properly performed around her residence. It further alleged that, before the request to extend the patrols