c) by way of an email sent on May 8, 2014, the CIJP stated that "the NPU officials have been trying to locate Danilo and they insist that the dialogue should be channeled through the mechanisms that they have proposed. That is, that the UNP value the requests and report on the progress within the framework of meeting on follow-up and coordination of precautionary measures "; d) direct communication with the National Protection Unit took place “given the urgency required to be taken by the [acting] President [of the Court ...] and required by the emergency procedure initiated by [the Unit ... ].” According to the State, “this direct dialogue, is the most appropriate channel to implement the urgent protection measures.” However, “the organization does not provide the channels of communication for the adoption of urgent individual measures, rather it continues [...] questioning requests of a collective nature”; e) “by way of a formal communication of May 9, 2014, to the CIJP, the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs proposed holding a meeting on Tuesday May 13, 2014, with the National Protection Unit […]”; f) by way of a communication dated May 7, 2014, the National Protection Unit reiterated that the CIJP “has collective protection measures in place which consist of eight (8) protection schemes that provide vehicles with drivers suggested by the organization itself, media, and (3 ) boats on land,” and stressed that “Mr. Danilo Rueda can use these schemes in the exercise of his duties and travel as a human rights defender and member of the [CIJP]"; g) by way of a communication received on May 6, 2014, the National Police noted that it had tried to personally contact members of the CIJP in order to “provide security, however, the answer was that information had been transmitted to the NPU and/or the Attorney General's Office [...].” Similarly, it noted that “when carrying out field visits, Mr. Danilo Rueda never informed the National Police of the need to provide the protection necessary to safeguard his life and personal integrity”; h) “[...] considering the proposal submitted by the petitioners, the merits of the matter were to apply to all members of the organization to which [Mr. Danilo Rueda] belongs, whose precautionary measures granted by the [... ] Commission remain in force and regarding which the State has acted diligently, despite the difficulties that have arisen.” Consequently, it stated that “the granting of provisional measures in this particular case, whose purpose is to provide protection that can be assured in the context of the precautionary measures requested by the [...] Commission, would create confusion both in its implementation and monitoring. As such, the more appropriate individual measures in the framework of the existing precautionary measure have not been implemented because the beneficiary power and that Mr. Rueda was not going to accept any measures until the meeting and agreement on the precautionary measures ordered by this organization.” 9