2 5. The first report of the State, presented on June 20, 1997, in which it referred to the status of the measures adopted to protect Gonzalo Arias Alturo, María Nodelia Parra, Javier Páez and Elida González. In regards to the second, the State said that, “the protection plan for Ms. Parra in the city of Bucaramanga consists of the service of one agent detective, two personal guards and a vehicle [Administrative and Security Department].” In regards to the June 16, 1997 request of the Commission, the State informed that it hoped “in as short a time as possible, to have concrete results concerning the required measures.” 6. The August 1, 1997, document by which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, requested the Inter-American Commission to submit its observations to the first report of the State. These observations should have been submitted no later than July 24 of the same year. 7. The second report of the State and its annexes, presented August 27, 1997, in which it referred to the status of the measures adopted to protect the beneficiaries of the present provisional measures. The Court summarizes the report in the following manner: a. in regards to Mr. Gonzalo Arias Alturo, the State reported that, after having determined his participation in an uprising in the prison of the Judicial District of Bucaramanga, he was transferred to the National Penitenciary “El Bosque”, in the city of Baranquilla. The State added that in this detention center it would take the necessary measures to ensure his life and personal integrity; b. in regards to Ms. María Nodelia Parra, the State reported that on June 11, 1997, a “disurbing event took place for the security of the protected person” which caused an investigation and resulted in increased security measures. The State affirmed that it had revised the security plan for Ms. Parra and that it actually had increased the security detail for her protection. The State also pointed out the investigation it had conducted regarding the threats against Ms. Parra; c. in regards to Mr. Javier Páez, the State reported that he is currently working in the DAS as a bodyguard and that as a result he had not received threats and therefore did not consider it necessary to increase his security and d. in regards to Ms. Elida González, the State reported that “it [has] not had news of her whereabouts, and therefore it has not been possible to advance concrete actions of risk evaluation.” As a result, the State indicated that it would be useful, through the petitioners, to know if anyone knows of her current whereabouts in order to coordinate the pertinent measures. 8. The observations presented by the Commission on August 28, 1997, to the first report of the State, which stated in the following terms its conern in regards to the situation of the persons protected by the present provisional measures: a. in regards to the transfer of Mr. Gonzalo Arias Alturoto the prison in Barranquilla, it expressed that the General Attorney’s National Human Rights Unit was not informed of this and that the State ignored whether, in effectuating said transfer, it had taken into consideration the situation of risk to Mr. Arias Alturo; b. in regards to Ms. María Nodelia Parra, it expressed its concern regarding the “dismantling her protection plan” and affirmed it did not have information on the new measures adopted by the State in this matter; c. in regards to Mr. Javier Páez, the Commission requested that the State persist in the actions necessary to evaluate the situation of risk;