beneficiaries.” It indicated that “since Mrs. Fischer participates in the investigation procedures in the Carpio Nicolle case, which has been reactivated, it would be pertinent for the beneficiary and her representatives to continue coordinating with the State the necessary measures concerning her protection.” The Commission also observed that “the State did not update the information on the risk assessment or explain the methodology used to determine that there had been no variation in the situation of the beneficiaries.” It added that “the risk to the beneficiaries continues, as revealed by the threats against Abraham Mendez and his family” in 2009 and 2011, and “the threats received constantly by Karen Fischer.” It considered that “this continued risk has been increased by the reopening of the investigations in the Carpio Nicolle case,” as well as the lack of effective protection of all beneficiaries. Furthermore, it indicated that the State should provide “urgently, protection for Mr. Méndez García and his family.” It also indicated that “[t]his protection is even more necessary based on the presumed death threats received in 2011, the absence of an investigation into them, and the reopening of the domestic proceedings, owing to Mr. Méndez García’s participation in the proceedings in the past.” 4. Regarding the investigation of the facts 18. With regard to the investigation of the facts that gave rise to these measures, the State advised that the events of June 19 and 20, 2004, concerning an “alleged attack on Karen Fischer and supposed threats” were being investigated. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had provided information on the preliminary considerations in the case, according to the report of August 2, 2004, prepared by the investigation experts of the Criminal Investigation Directorate, which determined: “(i) that contradictions exist between the accounts of the events denounced and the results of the investigation; (ii) the complainants did not provide sufficient information, did not provide the license plate number, […] or the necessary characteristics to be able to identify the persons who supposedly committed the act, and (iii) the neighbors closest to the scene of the incident, stated that they had not seen or heard anything related to the incident denounced.” 19. In its report of July 18, 2010, the State indicated that, according to information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, “it ha[d] not been possible to make any progress in the investigations owing to lack of further information from the complainants, who have been summoned to provide information relating to the case so that it can be investigated.” Regarding Mr. Méndez, the State indicated in its latest report that “to be able to take action in relation to the acts that have occurred against [him],” “it [was] necessary that, in keeping with the law, a criminal action be filed before the competent organs and, after this, investigation measures can begin.” 20. CEJIL indicated that, “during the processing of these provisional measures, the State […] ha[d] not provided information on the adoption of effective measures to determine the source of the threats that gave rise to these provisional measures and, consequently, to prosecute and punish those responsible.” Moreover, according to CEJIL, “the progress made in the investigation […] is perhaps the factor that most clearly allows [this] Court to assess effectively the risk and conclude that it has decreased enough to permit the measures to be lifted.” CEJIL indicated that the State “ha[d] not presented any information regarding the elucidation of the attack and the death threats suffered by Mrs. Fischer and her security agents in March 2010 and October 2009, respectively.” In addition, it underlined that it had not received information on any possible progress in these investigations. 21. The Commission took note of the information presented by the parties. In addition, it assessed positively “the reopening of the investigations in the Carpio Nicolle case, and 8