3 and COPREDEH had met and agreed that the former would file his complaint on November 2, 2000; “as of the date of this report, the foregoing had not been confirmed.” In the Commission’s December 17, 1999 observations on the State’s sixth report, and its April 28, 2000 observations on the State’s eighth report, the Commission made the point that while security was being provided, it was not with the frequency that the State claimed. It added that the petitioners had confirmed that they had not received threats. In its March 14 and July 3, 2000 observations on the State’s seventh and ninth reports, respectively, the Commission noted that the beneficiaries of the provisional measures were receiving the protection that the State had described and that they had not received threats. 11. The Commission’s August 30, 2000 observations on the State’s tenth report, wherein the petitioners stated that “the State has no security strategy for them and is not providing any kind of security or patrol.” Finally, they pointed out that “Santiago Cabrera has been without any form of State protection for some months now.” 12. The State’s eleventh and twelfth reports, dated September 11 and November 3, 2000, respectively, wherein it noted that the round-the-clock measures of protection measures for Mr. Santiago Cabrera López and his next of kin continued. On November 8, 2000, and January 22, 2001, respectively, the Commission submitted its observations on those two reports, wherein it reported that the State was not providing any security or patrol services to either Santiago Cabrera or his next of kin. The Commission went on to say that from time to time a patrol car drove around the area near his home, but never stopped to inquire about the family’s safety. 13. The State’s thirteenth report, of January 10 and 11, 2001, wherein reference was made to the security measures that the State was providing to Mr. Cabrera and his next of kin, and to the meeting that members of COPREDEH and the National Police had with Santiago Cabrera to “reconfirm the commitment signed by the State of Guatemala to provide him and his family with [those] measures […].” On March 12, 2001, the Commission submitted its observations wherein it reported that Santiago Cabrera was receiving effective protection from COPREDEH staff and his house was being patrolled. Mr. Cabrera believed that the State “ha[d] been more responsive to his concerns and fears in connection with the Bámaca Case.” 14. The February 16, 2001 order of the President of the Court summoning the parties to a public hearing, to be held at the seat of the Court on March 13, 2001. 15. The public hearing held at the seat of the Court on March 13, 2001, where the Commission reported that COPREDEH personnel were calling Santiago Cabrera every week to inquire about his circumstances. It also reported that the National Police were patrolling his residence –but not his work place- on a daily basis. Their routine was to drive by his home and “honk the horn” but not stop to inquire how he was. This was, in the Commission’s judgment, unsatisfactory. However, inasmuch as the measures had given Santiago Cabrera some peace of mind, the Commission requested that the Court maintain the measures until the judgment on the merits was executed in full. The Commission did agree with the idea that the State should report every four months, rather than every two, since the threats to Mr. Cabrera had subsided and provided that security continued to be provided. For its part, the State agreed with the “maintenance of provisional measures” and the new timetable