with identifying the perpetrators or instigators, or with shedding light on the sources of risk. This is the case despite the fact that several State institutions - judicial, police, COPREDEH, and the Human Rights Ombudsman - have acknowledged at various times the facts denounced and the risk posed to Mrs. Villaseñor. E. Measures adopted by the State 95. The Commission notes that both parties acknowledge that following the aforementioned occurrences in the first half of 1994 the State granted Mrs. Villaseñor police protection for her home. 96. Mrs. Villaseñor stated that on 30 August 1994 she had asked the Ministry of Defense to provide security.106 She stated that the next day she had held a press conference making the State and the security forces responsible "for anything that might happen to her."107 The State did not contest that information. 97. María Eugenia Villaseñor reported that, in response to a request by the Human Rights Ombudsman, the police provided two security guards, one of them unarmed.108 The State pointed out that in September 1994, as a security measure, the Directorate General of the National Police, appointed personnel responsible for protecting Mrs. Villaseñor and her family.109 The State maintained that Mrs. Villaseñor had turned down the offer of protection, "on the grounds that at that time the threats she had been subjected to had stopped.110 98. Mrs. Villaseñor said that, in December 1995, at the request of the President of the Judiciary, she was assigned two security guards and their replacements.111 99. The State said that in 1997, the Civilian National Police had been in charge of Mrs. Villaseñor's security.112 It claimed that the security arrangement was for four guards rotating every 8 days, with two guards per shift.113 It added that one of the guards took care of her protection, while the other protected her mother and daughter.114 The State added that two guards had been withdrawn as of 1997.115 100. In their brief of April 1997, the petitioners indicated that during that period Mrs. Villaseñor had had to defray the costs of feeding the two security guards provided by the State for her and her daughter.116 The State acknowledged the shortcomings in the arrangements for the security guards' meals and indicated that COPREDEH would talk to the Director General of the Civilian National Police "with a view to finding a satisfactory solution."117 The State submitted no further information in this regard. 101. Mrs. Villaseñor said that in early October 2001, one of the security guards had gone off on vacation and was not replaced.118 She placed on record that the personnel section chief in the Seprose police 106 Petitioners’ communication of September 30, 1994. 107 Petitioners’ communication of Friday, September 30, 1994. 108 Petitioners’ communication of September 30, 1994. 109 State’s communication of September 27, 1994. 110 State’s communication of November 7, 1994. 111 Petitioners’ communication of April 1, 1997. 112 State’s communication of October 10, 1997. 113 State’s communication of Friday, October 10, 1997. 114 State’s communication of Friday, October 10, 1997. 115 State’s communication of Monday, February 28, 2005. 116 Petitioners’ communication of April 1, 1997. 117 State’s communication of October 10, 1997. 118 Petitioners’ communication of October 5, 2001. 16