apparent from the proof provided in the file that a competent authority, such as the Public Prosecutor’s Office, was aware of the matter and in this case should have adopted the appropriate measures. 127. Regarding the measures adopted by the State, the Court believes it necessary to recall that state authorities have a responsibility to be aware of a situation of special risk, to identify or determine whether the person being threatened or harassed requires protection measures or to refer the matter to the competent authority for that purpose and to offer the person at risk pertinent information on the measures available. The assessment of whether a person requires protection measures and what those measures should be is the State’s obligation, and this must not be limited to requiring the victim to apply to “the competent authorities,” without knowing which authority can best address the situation, since it is the State’s responsibility to establish measures of coordination between its institutions and officials for this purpose.229 In this case, the Court notes that Mr. Luna López reported the death threat he received to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, thereby fulfilling his obligation to activate the bodies responsible for providing a response to the risk he was facing. 128. In relation to the report filed before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on February 26, 1998, the Court confirmed that during a meeting held at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Mr. Rosa had apologized to Mr. Luna López and had stated that he was intoxicated at the time of the threat (supra para. 28). In this regard, the Court has no specific information to establish, as a proven fact, that Mr. Luna López had accepted the apology or had asked the Public Prosecutor not to pursue the case. In fact, a few days later, Mr. Luna López told the press about the same threats he had previously reported (supra para. 29). Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Prosecutor did not bring charges of any kind because he believed that the existing legislation did not permit the recording of conciliatory proceedings (supra para. 28) and he did not adopt any additional measure to protect Carlos Luna or to assess the level of risk to which he was exposed. It is worth pointing out that the risk created by this threat subsequently materialized with Mr. Luna’s violent death outside the Municipal Building. In other words, the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s action was neither prompt nor efficient in countering the risk to the life of Mr. Luna López, of which it had been notified. 129. As to the actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in response to the reports of death threats and the danger to Mr. Luna López’s life, the Court deems it necessary to refer to the arguments of the parties on this matter according to the domestic legislation in this specific case, that is to say, the holding of a meeting which, according to the authorities, was considered “conciliatory” and the alleged non-compliance with domestic laws in this respect. 130. In this regard, the Court notes that the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the events established that a criminal action for the offences contained in the Criminal Code could be initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office or by the Judge,230 and that the complaint could be formulated either verbally or in writing.231 A record of the 229 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C, No. 248, para. 201. 230 Code of Criminal Procedure, supra, “Article 152. – Criminal proceedings may be started: 1) By the Judge ex oficio at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office; 2) Through an accusation or complaint filed by an authority or by any other person and 3) By a complaint or indictment filed by the injured party or by one of his relatives.” 231 Code of Criminal Procedure, supra, “Artículo 153. – The complaint, indictment or report may be formulated verbally or in writing, containing: 1) The name of the plaintiff, the accuser or the complainant; 1) The name or identity of the accused; 2) A detailed description of the incident; 40