19. The State reported that on August 20 and September 24, 2010, meetings were held with Mr. José Luis Galdámez Álvarez in order to reach an agreement on the precautionary measures and their corresponding implementation. It indicated that the beneficiary attended each of the aforementioned meetings accompanied by attorneys from different organizations for the promotion of human rights, a situation that, according to the State, was a bit “confusing,” as even to this day they do not know who the true representatives of the beneficiary are. It argued that this ambiguity makes the police work difficult because they do not know who should be contacted to carry out the monitoring (supra Having Seen 6(a and b)). Nevertheless, the State indicated that it reached an agreement with Mr. Galdámez Álvarez to provide vehicular or motorized escorts to his work and home, as well as telephonic communication with a link to the police, placing it on the record that the beneficiary must use the telephone communication link to provide his work address and/or residency and the schedule of his activities. According to the State, that information has not been provided by the beneficiary. The State also highlighted that “the Security Secretariat, conscious of the Commission's mandate […] and of the commitment to the beneficiary, as well as of the imminent risk to life and physical integrity faced by the beneficiary and his immediate family,” agreed to expand daily escorts to cover his children and wife. Likewise, it indicated that in order for the results to be effective, a log was prepared for monitoring visits and new activities, which, according to the State, the possibly beneficiaries have refused to sign until personal security is provided in the form of a permanent police detail, statements that the State finds inconsistent by virtue of the fact that the beneficiary himself rejected permanent police bodyguards, one of the forms in which the National Police provide this kind of protection (supra Having Seen 6(c)). 20. From the information provided by the parties, this Tribunal observes that from July 24, 2009, the date on which the Commission adopted the precautionary measures to the benefit of Mr. José Luis Galdámez Álvarez, until August 20, 2010, the date on which Honduras indicated that it held one of the meetings toward agreeing on the precautionary measures with the beneficiary, the State did not launch any action to protect Mr. José Luis Galdámez Álvarez and his immediate family. The Court highlighted that since the adoption of the protective measures granted by the Commission, the beneficiary and some members of his family have been threatened, intimidated, and attacked with firearms. 21. The Court takes into account that the State has reported that it has adopted measures to protect the life and integrity of Mr. Galdámez Álvarez, his companion, and his children. However, the Court finds that the State's pleadings to the effect that Mr. Galdámez Álvarez has attended the meetings to reach an agreement on his protective measures with different representatives, thereby confusing the State with regard to who they should contact to implement them, is out of line, as the measures have been ordered to the benefit of the journalist and his immediate family. The State itself has indicated that Mr. Galdámez Álvarez has been present at the aforementioned meetings. Likewise, the fact that Mr. Galdámez Álvarez has apparently not provided all the information requested for the implementation of the protective measures and has not adequately cooperated with the State in that regard does not exempt the State from its obligation to protect Mr. Galdámez Álvarez and his family under the terms of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, which sets forth the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and liberties enshrined in the Convention and to guarantee the free and full exercise of these rights for all individuals subject to their jurisdiction. The State has recognized the "imminent risk to his life and physical integrity and that of his immediate family.” All told, it is not clear from the information presented by the