4 As regards the duty to adopt the measures needed to protect the rights to life and physical integrity of María Leontina Millacura-Llaipén's granddaughters, of Ms Marcela, of Alberto and Noelia Hayes, and of Luis Alberto Fajardo (operating paragraph No. 2 of the Order of July 6, 2006), the State pointed out that it would submit consult the competent authorities of the Home Department about the possibility to committing a Naval Police guard to protect María Leontina Millacura-Llaipén's granddaughters, escorting them on their way to and back from school. In addition, it stated that the residences of the Torres and Hayes are being guarded by Argentine Naval Police officers. 5. That the representatives reported that the beneficiaries of these measures continue to receive threats and other types of intimidations; that Juan Pablo Caba, Miguel Antonio Gallardo and Luis Alberto Alcaina continue to suffer repressive acts in the prisons where they are kept and that their living conditions in jail get worse and worse; and that Walter Mansilla, beneficiary of these measures, died on May 24, 2007 (infra Considering clause No. 10). The representatives stated that some of the beneficiaries, including María Millacura, do not feel that the custody provided by the State is adequate, as “the guards [have been] found at times talking with the very policemen who [have been] reported [to be responsible for Iván's disappearance].” The representatives have stated their dissatisfaction with the prerequisites argued by the State for providing adequate protection for Tamara Bolívar, Patricio Oliva and Gerardo Colín (supra Considering clause No 4), according to which a court order is needed for the above-mentioned beneficiaries to be incorporated into the special witness protection program. The representatives pointed out “that the Court’s decisions are effective for the Argentinean State.” However, they stated that they "expressly required judicial protection on December 29, 2004.” 6. The Inter-American Commission, in its brief of November 21, 2006, stated that “the information available reflects the adoption of positive measures in connection with three specific issues related to these provisional measures, namely: the transfer of Miguel Ángel Sánchez, the previous adoption of other measures necessary for installing a closed circuit TV system in the local Penitentiary, and the issuance of an instruction to exclude local police agents from maintaining unnecessary contact with the beneficiaries.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission stated that the information available both from the State and from the representatives reflects a lack of progress and concrete measures with regard to the other aspects of protection ordered by the Court with the aim to protect the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries. Therefore, it requested the Court to require the State to submit a detailed account of the actual protection measures adopted and ongoing. In addition, the Commission stated that the provisional measures ordered by the Court call for immediate and compulsory implementation, so “the States have the duty to implement them and may not require the beneficiaries to take any further action.” 7. That according to the information submitted by the parties, the State has adopted a number of protection measures in consultation with the representatives and the beneficiaries, and has stated its willingness to implement other appropriate measures to protect the beneficiaries’ rights to life and physical integrity, Pursuant to the provisions in operating paragraphs