these alleged incidents, the Court asks the State to make specific reference to these new incidents of alleged threats and intimidation reported by the representatives in its next report on the implementation of these provisional measures, as well as to any measures it has adopted in this regard. In relation to the alleged threats received by telephone by the employees of the FAFG branch office in the municipality of Nebaj, the Court notes that these members of the Foundation are not beneficiaries of these provisional measures and, in this regard, recalls that it cannot rule on acts or situations that are not exclusively related to the beneficiaries of the measures.20 Nevertheless, it takes note of the representatives’ observation that “[t]his incident is one more in the series of threats suffered by the FAFG.” 36. The Court finds that these events reveal the continuation of situations that could constitute threats to the safety of the beneficiaries and this, added to the lack of information from the State regarding the risk assessments that had been made on the beneficiaries, does not allow it to determine clearly whether, in the current circumstances, the security mechanisms that the State has implemented have been useful, effective and timely. Therefore, the Court finds that maintaining these provisional measures in favor of the beneficiaries of the measures is justified. c.2 Regarding the investigations into the events related to these provisional measures 37. In its report of June 1, 2009, the State indicated that “it was difficult to determine the authors” of the threats received by the members of the FAFG, because of “the technical methods used to transmit them”; but all the “appropriate [means] to clarify the events” had been exhausted. Subsequently, during the public hearing held in September 2010, the State described the most relevant measures taken as part of the investigations into the events related to these provisional measures that occurred in 2006, 2007 and 2009. In this regard, it indicated that five investigations were carried out during the first two years and it was concluded that the threats were not significant, which led to in the dismissal of the court case. Regarding 2009, the State referred to incidents that took place in January that year, when a threat was allegedly received by e-mail and text message; the Public Prosecution Service attributed responsibility to the beneficiary Gianni Peccerelli, brother of the Director of the Foundation, Fredy Peccerelli. Nevertheless, it indicated that the judge of the case had decided that there were no grounds for attributing responsibility to the beneficiary; a decision that is under appeal. 38. Regarding the procedures and activities referred to by the State, in their observations of February 2009, the representatives indicated that “it appeared that [the State] is trying to attribute responsibility to Gianni Peccerelli for all the threats received over seven years, without any evidence to date other than the content of [a] video.” They also indicated that, after more than seven years during which the representatives have reported different acts of intimidation, “an analysis should be made that determines the pattern and the origin of the threats to date; also related to the political context at each moment the threats were received, as well as the fact that most of them attack the work performed by the organization.” They added that the State “ha[d] not revealed, through its institutions in charge of the criminal prosecution, that a serious, efficient and effective investigation had been conducted that could achieve concrete results.” The representatives forwarded the decision of the criminal judge of first instance of May 17, 2010, establishing the lack of grounds to attribute responsibility to Gianni Peccerelli, because “there [were] insufficient rational grounds to believe in [his] participation […] in the facts.” This decision also found that “the investigation [was] biased,” because it did not include all the data gathered; it therefore “urge[d] the Public Prosecution Service to redirect its 20 Cf. Matter of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó Communities. Order of the Court of August 30 , 2010, supra note 12, sixty-second considering paragraph, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra note 3, seventy-third considering paragraph. 14