frequently placed at further risk, since they have to wait […] on the highway, [… with] the evidence of the exhumation,” where the jurisdiction of one security unit ends, while they wait for “the agents [from the following jurisdiction who] are not at the appropriate place.” Regarding the notice given to the State of the exhumations, they explained that the FAFG is informed of the date of the exhumations “very late [and that] it notifies COPREDEH immediately.” The representatives indicated that, based on the meeting of April 5, 2010, the Foundation undertook to send a fortnightly program with at least two days notice, indicating the day the activity would start, the type of activity, the place and approximate duration, and the number of Foundation personnel who would be present. Subsequently, the name and telephone number of the contact person was added. They indicated that, subsequently, in June 2010, the FAFG was asked to send the program with four days notice, which was “difficult because most of the activities were not confirmed that many days ahead of time.” Owing to these difficulties, the representatives suggested that “the State of Guatemala appoint one patrol car from the [National Civil Police] permanently to accompany the FAFG teams that travel into the countryside to carry out investigation procedures as experts for the Public Prosecution Service, as well as continuing to try and coordinate the security of the FAFG teams with the police stations in the municipalities where the FAFG is working.” In their observations of October 25 and December 13, 2010, the representatives insisted on the impossibility of providing a schedule for the exhumations one week in advance, due to the number of variables that cause “uncertainty regarding when the exhumations will be carried out, [because] there are factors that oblige them to be modified and even suspended.” In addition, they indicated that, even though the mountain security system is not functional and places the beneficiaries in a situation of vulnerability, the latter have chosen to continue with this mechanism as far as possible, owing to the impossibility of coordinating another mechanism with the State. In their observations of February 2011, they insisted that the mountain security system “is not the most effective,” because its coordination is extremely complex and “it seldom offers the anticipated results,” and that even when the exhumation schedule is submitted on time, “the service is not always available owing to problems within the National Civil Police. 26. In its observations of February 17, 2011, the Inter-American Commission took note that the State “ha[d] not proposed alternatives that would resolve the problems raised by the representatives.” In this regard, it reiterated that Guatemala had not presented information on the measures it was adopting “to resolve the problems in the implementation of these provisional measures,” and insisted that the State must “provide measures of security and protection to those who conduct the exhumations.” 27. The Court recalls that, in its Order of January 26, 2009, it found that the State must adopt the necessary measures to guarantee that the beneficiaries are accompanied throughout the exhumations and during their transfers to the site.14 In this regard, it assessed positively the State’s efforts to provide a security service to the members of the FAFG during the transfers to conduct exhumations and while the exhumations were being carried out. The Court observes that the State has not indicated that it is opposed to the representatives’ request and proposal that the protection during the journeys to the exhumations and while they are being carried out be provided by a patrol car, on a permanent basis, and not by the “mountain security” system. Nevertheless, in January 2011, the State indicated that it did not have the necessary resources, although it was arranging “mechanisms that m[ight] be more effective” (supra considering paragraphs 23 and 25). The Court considers that, to ensure that this measure of protection is implemented effectively, Guatemala must take into account the concerns and observations of the representatives as regards their disagreement with the “mountain security” plan designed by the State. Moreover, it observes that Guatemala indicated that the beneficiaries must advise 14 Cf. Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 26, 2009, eleventh considering paragraph. 10