implemented with a differentiated approach, taking into account the geographical location of the area. The State also indicated that the measures of a collective nature included the provisions of seven outboard motor boats, 70 mobile communication networks, and three satellite telephones. 8. In addition, Colombia stated that, on February 3, 2011, during the meetings to reach agreement on and monitor the provisional measures, the Ministry of Defense had reiterated that it would retain the presence of the security forces in the territory of the Jiguamiandó and the Curvaradó river basins in order to ensure the respect for and the protection of the population. Accordingly, as the State had indicated, the Army’s 17th Brigade and the Río Sucio Task Force are conducting operations in the area in order “to demobilize, capture [… or] neutralize members of illegal armed groups that are seeking to commit crimes in the area,” and to provide security in order to allow the population to return. Furthermore, the State advised that “the movements of Army personnel […] in the area respond to the Army’s strategy to implement its missions and operations” and, according to the State, did not imply that it had abandoned the community. Moreover, it underlined the increase of troops in the area, from 576 men in 2011 to 756 in 2012, in order to improve and strengthen the situation of security and freedom of movement of the Jiguamiandó and Curvaradó communities, and the work of the National Police, which, through the Urabá Police Department had implemented preventive and operational measures throughout the jurisdiction. 9. Lastly, the State referred to the decisions adopted by the Constitutional Court of Colombia concerning the situation of the communities of the Jiguamiandó and of the Curvaradó. It indicated that “[g]iven the situation of extreme vulnerability of the displaced population” in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia, and having verified the grave, systematic, and massive violation of the fundamental rights of this population, the Constitutional Court had declared a state of unconstitutionality 7 concerning the internal forced displacement in amparo judgment T-025 of January 22, 2004, compliance with which had been verified by different monitoring mechanisms. The Court will refer to these decisions below (infra considering paragraphs 49 to 56). A.2. Observations of the representatives 10. The representatives indicated that the difficulties persist for the “authorities to provide a coordinated response to the dangerous situations faced by the beneficiaries of the provisional measures.” For example, in the case of Enrique Petro, they advised that the National Protection Unit had “created numerous [obstacles] to granting the tangible measures requested by the beneficiary,” including an “updated certification of the existence and legal representation of the organization” to which the beneficiary belongs. In addition, they indicated that, in May 2012, risk assessments had been conducted of several leaders, but the results have not yet been communicated, and that some measures mentioned by 7 “The factors evaluated by the court to define whether a state of unconstitutionality existed included the following, in particular: (i) the massive and generalized violation of various constitutional rights that affects a significant number of persons; (ii) the prolonger failure of the authorities to comply with their obligation to guarantee the rights; (ii) the adoption of unconstitutional practices, such as the incorporation of the application for amparo as part of the procedure to guarantee the violated right; (iii) the failure to adopt legislative, administrative or budgetary measures to avoid the violation of the rights; (iv) the existence of a social problem the solution of which entails the intervention of several agencies, calls for the adoption of a complex and coordinated series of actions, and requires a level of resources that demands an important additional budgetary effort; [and] (v) if all the persons affected by the same problem filed an application for amparo to obtain the protection of their rights, this would increase delays in the courts.” Cf. Judgment T-025 of January 22, 2004, Constitutional Court of Colombia (provisional measures file, tome XVIII, folio 7535). 6