8 19. The Court implementation of family. The Court security agencies in takes note of the steps taken by the State for the provisional measures in favor of the Rodríguez Quintero similarly appreciates the commitments made by the state the context of the present measures. 20. However, the Tribunal observes that a lack of communication between the authorities and the beneficiaries persists, despite specific agreements between the parties to cooperate. This is evident mainly in the contradictory information proffered by both sides before the Court. 21. The Court likewise notes that despite the state authorities’ pledge to hold monthly meetings with the beneficiaries (supra Considering clause 8), of the information submitted to the Court, it becomes apparent that the most recent meetings took place in March 2010, and that at the last of these the beneficiaries were not in attendance. It is unknown to this Court why no further meetings were held after this date. The Court highlights the importance of these meetings or any other form of communication between state authorities and the beneficiaries that helps to guarantee the effective planning and implementation of the protective measures in question. Therefore, the Commission urges the State to take all necessary steps to keep the beneficiaries and their representatives informed about progress in the planning and implementation of the measures ordered by the Court and, if at all possible, to collaborate in this process. 22. Regarding the particular dangerous circumstances facing the beneficiaries, the Court recalls that in its Order of July 8, 2009, it requested that the parties present “concrete and detailed information with respect to the beneficiaries’ situation.”9 That information was to contain “a risk assessment, as well as what constituted specific and adequate means by which to enforce the protective measures.”10 23. The Tribunal notes that despite the aforementioned, the information alleged by the parties is not sufficient to permit an adequate evaluation of the extent of the hazards facing the beneficiaries, nor to discern the effectiveness of the State’s protective measures in their favor. Particularly, the Court stresses that despite the State’s having requested risk assessment studies and apparently having determined the existence of an “extraordinary” risk confronting the beneficiaries (supra Considering clauses 12 and 14), the results of these studies have never been put before the Tribunal, nor has there been any mention made of them on the part of the State. The Court values the information presented by Colombia with respect to the measures of protection it has implemented, but notes that this information cannot be analyzed properly without the corresponding risk assessment. The information the State has provided simply does not permit one to conclude with certainty whether, in the present circumstances, the security measures the State has implemented have turned out to be useful, effective, and timely. 24. It is likewise a source representatives have not submitted Having Seen clause 27) and that in have not referred specifically to the thus far implemented. of concern for this Tribunal that the to it the information it has requested (supra their observations on the State’s briefs they effectiveness of the measures the State has 9 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, supra note 3, Considering clause ninety-five. 10 Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment and Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, supra note 3, Considering clause ninety-five.