4 1) Regarding the beneficiary Gonzalo Arias Alturo 7. The State manifested that, while Mr. Gonzalo Arias Alturo (hereinafter, “Mr. Arias Alturo”) was deprived of his liberty in different penitentiary centers, the National Penitentiary and Prison Institute adopted the necessary measures to guarantee his life and personal integrity without him suffering any type of attack. Recently, on November 23, 2009, Mr. Arias Alturo obtained the benefit of conditional liberty, a fact that was communicated to the security bodies of the State and to the Office of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, for them to provide security measures. Given the insistence of the State to warn the beneficiary that his security measures must be extreme, at the moment he was freed, he manifested that he did not need any protection by the State and that “the only thing he needed was to be set free immediately, under the threat of denouncing kidnapping since they would not let him go.” Said situation was communicated to the Defense of the People and of the Commander of the 5th Brigade of the National Army, so as to coordinate whichever security procedure deemed necessary for the beneficiary. Since he was set free, the whereabouts of Mr. Arias Alturo are unknown. On the other hand, the State reiterated that, despite the provisional measures, said beneficiary has not cooperated in an effective manner with the investigation of the forced disappearance of Isidro Caballero Delgado and of Maria del Carmen Santana nor in the search for the mortal remains of the victims. 8. The representatives stated in their briefs that they could not make observations on the situation of Arias Alturo because they had not been called to coordinate or to learn of the adopted measures regarding said person. The beneficiary may be a source of explanation regarding the facts and of the final whereabouts of the victims of the present case, but has not offered information because he does provide information because he does not count on the necessary security conditions; during his detention “he has been […] visited by members of the public force at the jails where he had been imprisoned.” Also, the representatives specified that said beneficiary did not grant them the power to represent him, but only sent them communications in which he said, for example, that he had been visited “by members of the Army,” or that one of his brothers had been assassinated while he was deprived of his liberty, a reason for which he feared to offer information regarding the present case. All together, the representatives provided that they did not have contact with the beneficiary, that they did not know if he was willing to offer information about the case, that they could not affirm effectively if he continues to be in a situation of risk, and that they could not endorse the request of the State to rescind the measures ordered in favor of the beneficiary. 9. The Commission valued the measures adopted by the State regarding Mr. Arias Alturo; nevertheless, it did not present observations regarding the current situation of the beneficiary, nor regarding the request formulated by the State to rescind the provisional measures ordered in favor of said beneficiary. * * * 10. The Court valued the efforts made by Colombia with the purpose of implementing the provisional measures ordered in favor of Mr. Arias Alturo. In this sense, the State allowed for the beneficiary to serve his sentence of imprisonment in