referring, if applicable, to specific incidents that would allow the Court to verify whether the necessary requirements are met to order the expansion of these measures to him.20 24. On December 4, 2012, the representatives submitted to the Court information on “incidents that had occurred to Guillermo Flores after having” requested the expansion of these provisional measures to him. The representatives indicated that, on November 3, 2012, “Guillermo Flores’ home was shot at from a grey Renault Logan vehicle, with polarized windows, with four people in it.”21 In addition, they alleged that, on November 8, 2012, two agents of the Argentine Federal Police came to his home and took him, as “if were arrested,” to the Federal Court of Comodoro Rivadavia, where he was questioned22 about the case of the enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres, among other matters. According to the representatives, he was “reproached” for “having lodged a complaint before the Inter-American Court […],” and the judge who questioned him forbade him to speak to third parties about his statement, telling him that “he could not interfere any further.” She also informed him that “police agents would be posted to his home ‘to protect him’” until November 13, 2012, the date of which he should provide the information that she had requested. As the judge had indicated, presumably, that same day, “a grey Ranger truck, with four people inside, parked, and they prevented Mr. Flores from leaving his home without [… previously informing them] where and why he was going out and who he would be meeting.” Later, an individual who Mr. Flores identified as a police agent from the First Police Precinct of Comodoro Rivadavia arrived in a “Renault 12” together with another man and “reprimanded the individuals who were in the Ranger.” 25. Furthermore, in the said brief, the representatives also indicated that, on November 18, 2012, “shortly before 2 a.m., two unknown persons entered Mr. Flores’ domicile,” who “when they saw him jumped over the wall of the house.” Mr. Flores telephoned a Federal Police official who told him that he would send a patrol car to his home and, subsequently, two police agents of the province of Chubut arrived. They presumably told Mr. Flores that they “kn[ew] what [was] happening,” without providing him with any explanation. In view of this situation, Mr. Flores again telephoned the Federal Police official who had attended him previously, and “reproached him for having called on members of the police of the province of Chubut”; however, the official responded that “he had not called them [and that …] he had only send ‘[his] men.’” Based on the foregoing, the representatives reiterated the request to expand these provisional measures to Guillermo Flores, and also asked that the measures be expanded to Alba Rosana Vera González, who lives with him. 26. Subsequently, in response to the State’s observations (infra considering paragraph 27), in a brief of January 17, 2013, the representatives “denied categorically that the judge had adopted any measure to protect the rights [… of] Mr. Flores.” According to them, “[t]he personnel who were posted for one day in front of his home were there so that Mr. Flores would give them information on the individuals who he had indicated were involved in the disappearance of Iván 20 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2012, nineteenth considering paragraph. 21 According to the representatives, Mr. Flores called the Police of Rada Tilly, but “no one responded to him,” so he then called “the telephone of Rada Tilly Urban Security.” [T]wo people in a mobile unit arrived, and Mr. Flores informed them of what had happened […]. The Urban Security personnel advised him that the said vehicle was not from Rada Tilly and that it would be identified when it left the town. To date, Mr. Flores has not been informed about this episode by either the latter or any other authority.” 22 The representatives indicated that Mr. Flores was questioned by the “Sub-Secretariat of Human Rights, [… by the] defense lawyers of some of the police agents involved in lawsuit 7020 Millacura Llaipén María Leontina ref/Enforced disappearance of a person, [and also by the judge who was hearing this case and by the] Secretary [of the said court].” Apparently, Mr. Flores did not have his lawyer, even though he had asked to be allowed to call him. 9