5 respective local police departments so that they provide security during the exhumation process.” 13. The Inter-American Commission did not make any observations on this point. * * * 14. Regarding the State’s obligation to inform the Court as to its investigation into the facts underlying the adoption of the present provisional measures (Operative Paragraph 3 of the Order of January 26, 2009; supra Having Seen 2), the State indicated that “there have been difficulties in determining the origin” of the threats aimed at members of the FAFG because of the “technical means utilized in their commission,” and that all “appropriate means of clarifying the facts” have been exhausted. In this regard, the State has given an account in its briefs of a series of actions and activities carried out in relation to the alleged threats received during 2008 and 2009. In its briefs of June 1, 2009; December 11, 2009; and March 26, 2010, the State referred to actions conducted in order to investigate the threats received by Mr. Fredy Peccerelli in January 2009. According to the information proffered by the State, this investigation linked Mr. Gianni Peccerelli, Fredy Peccerelli’s brother, to the threats and he was called to give a statement on the matter. The State also referred to the representatives’ request to have access to progress in the conduct of the investigations. 15. Concerning the aforementioned actions and activities on the part of the State, the representatives indicated that “it would appear to be the case that [the State] hopes to name Mr. Gianni Peccerelli as the one responsible for all the threats received over the past seven years without there being more evidence at present to confirm this besides the material contained on [one] video.” They later added that Mr. Gianni Peccerelli made a statement before a competent tribunal on May 17, 2010 and that this court “totally ruled him out from the process” in concluding that the Public Prosecutor’s information did not constitute any proof that he was responsible for the threats. The representatives also noted that after more than seven years of reporting these threats “at present, there must be in existence some analysis to establish the threat patterns and their provenance relating to the political context of each at the time the threats were made[; also that] the threats mainly show an attack aimed at the organization’s work.” The representatives referred to the lack of information from the Public Prosecutor on advances in the investigation, particularly with respect to the complaint filed on April 14, 2010 on the events of the previous day (infra paras. 20-21). They added that the State “by way of its criminal justice system has not demonstrated its compliance in conducting a serious, efficient, and effective investigation capable of drawing specific conclusions.” 16. For its part, the Commission noted that “the State has not presented detailed, specific information capable of showing that it is complying with its obligation to investigate the facts giving rise to these provisional measures as well as those facts that continue to emerge.” The Commission remarked that “it is necessary to establish a clear and coherent investigative line of inquiry regarding the facts and corresponding liability, and the interest parties should have access to it.” * * * 17. In relation to the obligation to take the necessary steps to ensure that the protective measures are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries or their representatives and, in general, to keep them informed of progress in their implementation