the decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and ordered the investigation to be continued until the facts denounced have been clarified; d) the State proposed to Mrs. Luz Estela Castro the implementation of a Security Protocol and put into practice the following measures of protection: i. ii. iii. iv. security infrastructure, consisting of the installation of smoked (polarized) glass and a code blue system (emergency button) outside the premises of the Women’s Human Rights Center; as well as the installation of a camera system and electronic doors; communication systems. According to the State, since November 2008, “Luz Estela Castro or other beneficiaries have a system of five cell phones with encryption of data or credit that is renewed monthly, which remains in operation; permanent contact, via an emergency number permanently available with the Secretariats of Public Security of the Federal Government, the State of Chihuahua and the Municipality of Chihuahua, and police patrols, implemented jointly in the premises of the Women’s Human Rights Center; e) in addition, the State emphasized that since these measures were implemented, neither the state nor the federal authorities have received a formal report from the petitioner regarding any problem or incident; f) with regard to recent events and facts involving other human rights defenders that could create an element of risk, the State argued that the aforementioned statements by senior public officials “were never intended to discredit the work carried out by the human rights defender ” and that, on the contrary, the Government of the State of Chihuahua “has always recognized the work of members of civil society organizations […], the erroneous information disseminated by Mrs. Luz Estela Castro regarding the investigations in the case of Mrs. Marisela Escobedo was likely to create confusion and disinformation among the inhabitants of the State of Chihuahua […] for this reason the General Prosecutor considered it pertinent to clarify and refute the statements made,” and g) as to the situation of human rights defenders in the State of Chihuahua, the State indicated that, during 2012, the National Human Rights Commission made no recommendations to the Government. 11. In addition, the State emphasized that it had implemented various public policies, both at the state and the federal levels, in favor of human rights defenders, which “require the request and consent of the potential beneficiaries to avail themselves of these, something that has not occurred in this case.” Among these policies it mentioned: a) the State of Chihuahua’s Comprehensive Security System for the Protection of Journalists, which is also applied to human rights defenders at risk, given its effectiveness. This system, in operation since September 8, 2010, includes preventive and self-protection measures, as well as a mechanism to ensure the flow of information and immediate attention by the authorities, who will determine the actions to be taken in order to safeguard the physical integrity of the beneficiary. Moreover, it emphasized that “the effectiveness 6