h) Even though the communities had sent a request for a comprehensive protection plan to the National Protection Unit in October 2012, they had not received a response. 7. The note of the Secretariat of February 27, 2013, in which, based on Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was required to forward any observations it deemed pertinent on the representatives’ request and the Commission’s brief by March 7, 2013, at the latest. The State was asked to provide any other relevant information and documentation, in particular a detailed explanation on “the dangerous situations that had been alleged, the measures of protection that it had implemented in relation to preventive measures MC 79-99 decided by the Commission, or to any others decided by domestic authorities.” 8. The brief of March 3, 2013, in which the representatives presented “new facts” in relation to their request for provisional measures. 9. The note of the Secretariat of March 5, 2013, in which, based on Article 27(5) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was required, in the observations that it had been asked to present on the said request, to refer also to the information presented by the representatives. 10. The communication of March 8, 2013, in which the State indicated that, in the context of preventive measures MC 70/99, the Inter-American Commission had convened a working meeting to be held on March 13 that year, together with the representatives of the beneficiaries, and therefore requested an extension of 20 days to present the State’s report. 11. The note of the Secretariat of March 12, 2013, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court, it advised that the extension requested by the State had been granted until April 1, 2013, in the understanding that, within the framework of preventive measures MC 70/99 and/or based on other provisions of domestic law, the State was already adopting the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the persons in whose favor the provisional measures had been requested, while this request was decided. 12. The brief of April 1, 2013, in which the State presented its observations. In particular, it indicated the following: a) Regarding the factors relating to the military intervention in the zones of Cacarica: i. The 54th Battalion, stationed in the municipality of Mutatá, Antioquia, is operating under the operational plans being implemented in the jurisdiction that covers CAVIDA, and is responsible for the municipalities of Riosucio and Carmen Del Darién. Since January 2012, this unit has been conducting territorial control operations in the said area, in order to provide permanent protection to civil society, its property and the State’s resources, and to ensure the safety and integrity of the region’s ethnic minorities, indigenous reserves, and Afro-descendant communities; ii. The security forces have been present constantly in the Cacarica River area, before and after the activities of the 54th Battalion; there have been no significant alterations in public order, and any isolated incident that may have arisen was neutralized. According to the Ministry of Defense, it was aware of the presence of the 57th Front of the FARC in the area. The Army, based on intelligence activities, had been able to conduct operations that had produced favorable results for the State in the combat against the guerrilla; in particular, interventions in coca-processing laboratories and seizures, and iii. The State considers the presence of the Army and the National Police to be a sovereign and legitimate act, stemming from protection and assistance policies, “designed merely to ensure the constitutional order, and the integrity of national territory, and to provide protection to the inhabitants of the region, in strict compliance with the international obligations to respect and ensure human rights recognized in Article 1(1) of the Convention.” 8