6 State suggested direct intercommunication with local authorities. In that regard, the State indicated that “there are 2 options that the State considers might be useful to supervise this procedure: firstly, the possibility to request the Ombudsman and the General Prosecutor’s Office to perform a quarterly evaluation of the situation in both basins, which would allow to supervise the work made by the State regarding the obligations comprised in those measures; and, secondly, the scheduling of field visits, which could be made by State officers with the participation of the beneficiaries for the purposes of evaluating the situation. These visits may also be made on a quarterly basis, notwithstanding any potential extraordinary visit, if so required”. 15. The representative stated that for the purposes of ongoing supervision of the adopted protection measures, the national government should make an effective commitment as regards local authorities and their involvement in the territory. The representative remarked that, given the population and topographic characteristics of the area, it was suggested that the national government allocate other instruments to develop early alert mechanisms with greater mobility for reporting in areas where satellite phones did not work, since none of them is active to this date. 16. As regards the definition of mechanisms for provisional measure follow-up and to guarantee their efficacy, the Inter-American Commission considered “important the proposal for drafting a quarterly report on the Ombudsman and General Prosecutor's Office, and also defining a field visit schedule with the participation of the beneficiaries, since there is no doubt that the presence of national authorities in the lands is of the essence to achieve adequate evaluation and follow-up of the situation”. 17. Within the scope of the State's obligation to define an ongoing supervision and communication mechanism with the beneficiaries of these provisional measures, the Court appreciates the proposals of the State regarding the performance of quarterly evaluations of situations posing risks to the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó river basins, possibly under the charge of the Ombudsman and the General Prosecutor’s Office, aimed at supervising the work carried out by the State regarding these provisional measures. Similarly, possible in situ visits by State officers were deemed convenient in order to assess the situation, counting on the active participation of the beneficiaries. The proposed supervision mechanisms would be aimed at contributing to the efficacy of the protection measures adopted on this matter. In this sense, the Court urges the State to activate any such mechanisms. Furthermore, it is important that, as mentioned by the State and the representative, national authorities reach an agreement with the various municipal authorities as to measures to effectively guarantee security and to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures. * * *