4 pointed out that Karen Fischer de Carpio was having to “pay part of the costs of her personal protection in order to have constant, effective protection, [when it was] the obligation of the Guatemalan State [to pay] the expenses and costs that [her] personal protection involved.” The Commission further stated that no one had been “detailed to guard Mrs. Marta Arrivillaga since early September.” The Commission therefore requested the Court to order the following of the State: 1. Satisfactory, swift and effective compliance with the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court. Accordingly, at least two police officers should be assigned to protect Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio, and an additional police officer to protect Karen Fischer de Carpio. 2. That [... the State] pay the costs and expenses that personal protection services for Marta de Carpio and Karen Fischer de Carpio entailed. 16. The State’s thirty-seventh report, dated November 8, 2000, wherein it again mentions the security measures taken for the beneficiaries. On January 8, 2001, the Secretariat reminded the Commission of its obligation to present observations on that report. On January 31, 2001, the Commission presented its observations and asked that the Court maintain the provisional measures ordered for Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio and Karen Fischer de Carpio. It pointed out that in the case of the former, “contrary to what the Government claims, only one police officer has been detailed to protect her, not two.” 17. On February 9, 2001, the Secretariat asked the State to submit the thirtyeighth report without delay. On March 12, 2001, Guatemala submitted the requested report, wherein it claimed that two police officers were detailed to protect each of the two beneficiaries and that visits and phone calls had also been made as a way to check on them. In these phone calls and visits Mrs. Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio told COPREDEH that only one person was assigned to protect her. 18. The February 16, 2001 Order of the President which summoned the State and the Commission to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on March 13, to evaluate the facts and circumstances necessitating continuation of the present provisional measures. 19. The public hearing held on March 13, 2001 at the seat of the Court, where the Commission expressed its concern that case No. 1011-97 had been set aside. As for the protective measures taken by the State, the Commission pointed out that the police officers assigned to protect the persons in question had been taken away on a number of occasions. Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio, who has not reported any incidences of intimidation in recent months, had “two police officers guarding her personally, and one […] at her workplace.” In the case of Karen Fischer de Carpio, it established that “every time she publishes an article in the newspaper about the Carpio Case, she is threatened;” at the present time, only one officer is assigned to protect her, and is on duty for eight hours a day on week days; on weekends, however, she has no protection at all. The Commission therefore requested that the measures be kept in place. It also asked that the State be required to report every 4 months, rather than every 2 months as it does at the present time. Should any emergency arise, the Commission would inform the Court immediately. The State, for its part, had “no objection at all to continuing to provide security measures,” took note of the observations and asked the Court to evaluate the measures being provided after a reasonable amount of time had passed. Finally, during the hearing