and therefore recalled the importance of the mechanisms for concertation between the State, the beneficiaries and their representatives, and that any measure of protection must be based on the circumstances and needs of the beneficiaries. C.4. Considerations of the Inter-American Court 21. On this point, there are also differences between the information presented by the representatives, the State and the Inter-American Commission, which make it difficult to monitor its implementation. Without prejudice to the following findings (infra considering paragraphs 45 to 56), the Court urges the representatives and the State to continue making every effort to respond to the situation and the needs of the members of the humanitarian zones of Nueva Esperanza, Pueblo Nuevo, Caño Claro and El Tesoro, and of the five biodiversity zones known as Erasmo Sierra, Enrique Petro, Familia Tuberquia, Ligia María Chaverra and Efrén Romaña. 9 D. New facts alleged by the representatives of the beneficiaries and the InterAmerican Commission D.1. Information provided by the representatives 22. The representatives referred to the presence of supposed paramilitaries who continue acting with the acquiescence of the Army and the Police authorities; to presumed encroachments on the biodiversity zones and plantations of the members of the humanitarian zones perpetrated by presumed illegal occupants and paramilitaries, and to supposed threats and harassment of leaders during the restitution process. In this regard, the representatives indicated that, on November 6, 2011, the leader María Ligia Chaverra, beneficiary of these provisional measures, had “received renewed threats from an illegal occupant.” In addition, they indicated that, on November 12 that year, presumed “paramilitaries of the ‘Águilas Negras’’ were making inquiries about a community leader” Benjamín Sierra, member of the community council of Nueva Esperanza. Also, on October 16, 2012, they indicated that during the “processing of these [provisional] measures, as a result of the order to restitute land issued by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, the following had received death threats: Manuel Denis Blandón, Melkis Romaña and Romualdo Salcedo of the humanitarian zone of Pueblo Nuevo; Enrique Petro […] and Elías López of the humanitarian zone of Andalucía Caño Claro; […] Benjamín Sierra, Erasmo Sierra, Manuela Santana and Cristóbal Reyes of the humanitarian zone of Nueva Esperanza; […] Atanael Martínez, […] of the humanitarian zone of El Tesoro; María Ligia Chaverra, [and …] Uriel Tuberquia and Adriana Tuberquia […] of the humanitarian zone of Camelias.” D.2. Observations of the Inter-American Commission 23. The Commission reiterated the facts presented by the representatives (supra considering paragraph 22). Among other elements, it gave particular emphasis to the alleged presence of paramilitaries in the collective territories of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó; the withdrawal of the perimeter protection of the humanitarian and biodiversity zones; the disappearance of a persons from the zone and the presumed forced displacement of his family, supposedly attributable to the actions of the said groups; the death threats and harassment of leaders during the process of land restitution, as well as the supposed presence of armed civilian structures and business people involved in growing 9 Cf. Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2011, twenty-seventh considering paragraph. 10