This “obstructs police work, since it is not clear who the police must communicate with in order to carry out the monitoring necessary to fulfill the precautionary measure granted.” For that reason, it asserted that the possible beneficiary had to clarify this situation; c) Nevertheless, at the meeting the State agreed to increase the patrols to three times a day for Mr. Galdámez’s children and partner. These patrols “are being carried out” and “in order to have an effective result, a logbook was created to register the visits or any news at Radio Globo” and at the family home. However, the State indicated that, “unfortunately, the police officers in charge of executing [the patrols] have experienced difficulties, as the [possible] beneficiary and his immediate family did [not] want to sign the logbook prepared for that purpose, saying that they would not sign it until they received complete personal security, [that is], the assignment of permanent police escort.” The State argued that these “statements […] are inconsistent, since the [possible] beneficiary rejected the permanent police escorts” offered by the National Police and requested the establishment of a budgetary fund for the hiring of private and permanent security.” Furthermore, it indicated that Mr. Galdámez demanded that the funds be provided by the Secretariat of State in the Security Office; however, he never submitted his request to this entity; d) Mr. Galdámez has shown “reluctance to collaborate with the police officers in charge of carrying out the patrols, as they have received […] poor treatment” on his part; and e) “the Human Rights Unit […] initiated [ex officio] investigations [into the attack suffered by the possible beneficiary] on September 16, [2010], responding almost immediately, [and] even putting itself at the disposal of the [possible] beneficiary and offering him all the necessary collaboration, both for the investigation and for his personal protection […].” These investigations have been carried out “as a priority […], to the point that they have almost concluded, arriving at positive results, such as the identification of the possible suspects and the location of the vehicle that the suspects used when committing the criminal act […].” 7. The request for provisional measures was submitted by the Inter-American Commission while the Court was not in session. In accordance with Article 27(6) of the Rules of Procedure, under those circumstances the President can order the State to take the urgent measures necessary to ensure the efficacy of the provisional measures that the Court may later order during its next period of sessions. Based on this authority, through the Order of December 22, 2010 (hereinafter “the President’s Order”), the President decided to: 1. Require the State to adopt, without delay, effective measures necessary to guarantee the life and personal integrity of Mr. José Luís Galdámez Álvarez, his partner, Wendy Orellana Molina, and his children, Pedro Luís, José Luís, Marlon Josué, Ramón Israel, and two other minor children, all of whom have the last name Galdámez. 2. Request the State to present, by December 10, 2011, at the latest, a report regarding the measures adopted in fulfillment of the […] Order, and to request the representatives of the beneficiaries and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their observations on the report within two and four weeks, respectively, as of the date notice of the State report was served. 6