2 investigations of the facts which entailed the adoption of the provisional measures in favor of Mr. Leonel Rivero, the State pointed out that on October 11, 2007, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Federal District postponed the non-exercise of the criminal action. The beneficiary filed an appeal for reconsideration of said decision, which is being analyzed at the Fiscalía Central de Investigación para Delitos Financieros (Solicitor General Office for the Investigation of Financial Crimes). As to the preliminary inquiry on the threats against Bárbara Zamora, the State informed that it did not yield sufficient elements to prove the claimed crime, reason for which the Attorney General of the Federal District ruled for the non-exercise of the criminal action. On December 3, 2003, said decision by the Attorney General was notified to the beneficiary, who did not appeal. As to the rounds, the State argued that they have taken place in a regular way at the domicile provided by Mr. Rivero, but considering that "no one has been found, […] the rounds forms do not include his signature." Furthermore, the four cellular telephones owned by the Rivero family and the fourteen cellular telephones owned by families Ochoa y Plácido work in a regular manner. Finally, the State pointed out that from the granting of these provisional measures, the only beneficiary who has claimed possible new threats has been Mr. Leonel Rivero, and that such claims “have been investigated according to the law in every case, in compliance with the State’s obligation to investigate.” 5. The briefs submitted by the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter, "the representatives") presented between January 20, 2006, and January 9, 2008, by means of which they forwarded their remarks to the State’s reports. With regard to the protection measures, they expressed their agreement on how some of them were being developed, and they disagreed with the State as to the implementation of others. On the other hand, they enhanced the lack of progress in the investigation of the facts which gave rise to the provisional measures. In that sense, in their brief of December 5, 2007, the representatives requested the Court to keep those measures in force regarding all the beneficiaries, “[b]ecause the facts which gave rise to these provisional measures have not been clarified nor have the responsible parties been identified." They further requested that the “State be urged to seriously investigate the facts and to thoroughly and truly inform on the status of the investigations”, and especially that the State “provide sufficient and detailed information regarding the investigations on the threats suffered by Pilar Noriega and Digna Ochoa, as well as the murder of Digna Ochoa y Plácido.” Later on, in their brief of January 9, 2008, the representatives provided the domicile of Mr. Leonel Rivero-Rodríguez, so that the State “take the necessary actions in order to guarantee the safety of the beneficiary and his family”; they expressed their concern for the closure of the preliminary inquiries as to the facts denounced by said beneficiary, decision which “tends to foster impunity”, and they affirmed that “the risk to which the beneficiary and his family are exposed continues to exist.” With regard to Pilar Noriega-García, they enhanced “the repeated omission to inform on the assertions made regarding the investigation of the facts which gave rise to the provisional measures ordered […]” in her favor. They have stated that the State “has omitted to provide detailed information on the procedural situation of the investigation of the threats received by Digna Ochoa y Plácido and Pilar Noriega-García, and that the State must especially inform on the investigation of the death of the former, as that constitutes the essential origin of the provisional measures.” Regarding Bárbara Zamora-López, the representatives expressed that “the Mexican State has been changing the reasons for which it has denied a copy of registered file