recent temporal framework; that the measures of protection offered by the State and the measures adopted by the beneficiaries themselves could have influenced the absence of recent facts of extreme gravity and urgency, and that the report of the risk presented by Peace Brigades was accepted by the State. Consequently, the Court considers that the situation of risk to the detriment of the beneficiaries, at the moment, remains in this case. b. Measures of protection in favor of the beneficiaries 15. The State reported that “[on] March 8, 2010 […] it presented the representative[s] with three sets of NEXTEL radio phones[,] requested [by the beneficiaries].” It added that on May 5, 2010, the representatives required the State to install a satellite telephone at the home of the family members of the beneficiaries. In this regard, it noted that, although the family members of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú are not beneficiaries of the present provisional measures, the State “in good faith […] is carrying out the necessary administrative procedures to implement the requested measure.” It stated that on August 31, 2010, it signed a contract with a telephone company for its services, despite there having been some administrative difficulties with the company.” Given the foregoing, “a […] new contract was requested,” where the possibility existed “of acquiring other sets that could better satisfy the requirements […] of the provisional measures.” It subsequently reported that new steps have been taken in this regard and noted that “once there is a result, it will inform the Court on the matter.” 16. Regarding the other measures of protection, it indicated that on July 15, 2010, it presented the representatives with a “preliminary work plan,” wherein it included the proposals of the State regarding the implementation of the recommendations issued by Peace Brigades in its risk assessment of May 21, 2010. On September 13, 2010, it presented the representatives with a work plan for the comprehensive implementation of measures, so that the representatives could submit their comments in order to begin the implementation. On March 23, 2011, it reported that, once the observations of the representatives were received, Mexico began taking the pertinent steps, in such a way that: a) on February 8, 2011, the beneficiaries were provided with specific security equipment for their home; b) the representatives are in contact with a public employee of the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights, who—at any time—responds to situations related to the security of the beneficiaries and implements specific actions of to coordinate with agencies to attend to the complaints; c) a “guarantee letter” was provided to the beneficiaries, signed by the head of the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights, which establishes the special situation of protection of the beneficiaries, and which allows for an immediate response of any security body if they encounter risk; d) a “guarantee letter” was provided to the beneficiaries, signed by the head of the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights, addressed to the authorities at a federal, state, and municipal level, with a message of support recognizing the responsibility of the State to protect the integrity of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, and e) together with the Ministry of Federal Public Security, efforts were made to provide the beneficiaries with a “Workshop on Stalking Detection and Response Actions to any harassment” and a “Course on Self Defense,” in the terms requested by the representatives, without receiving a response from the mentioned agency. In regard to the measures pending implementation, “it considers that due to the change in circumstances both regarding the initiation of efforts by State authorities of Guerrero as well as the initiation of the execution of the [J]udgement […], it is necessary to establish, in consensus with the beneficiaries, a new path for the care of the provisional measures, to which […] it will summon […] a 6