but the State has not reported on implementation of these measures. In this regard, the Court notes that the representatives do not specify all of the measures, but rather they indicate "among them, for example, […] the support of the Ministry of Education for the security of Yenis Bernardino at the school, and the establishment of bi-monthly meetings to assess compliance with the provisional measures.” Consequently, the Court asked the representatives to specify the specific measures proposed by the State that have been accepted without question by the beneficiaries, and also requires the State to submit specific information on this point. 26. As regards the other measures of protection on which the parties have not reached an agreement, the Court recalls that in its previous Order it determined that the State should take the steps necessary to ensure that the provisional measures are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries or their representatives, so that the measures are provided for in a diligent and effective manner. The Court emphasized that the positive involvement of the State and particularly of the representatives is essential to coordinate the implementation of provisional measures in this case. Consequently, the Court considers it necessary that the process for determining these protective measures continue to be performed in joint form, constructively and promptly, and with the constant communication and agreement between the parties. In this regard, the Court notes that the parties agree on the need to hold meetings in order to specify the pertinent actions to continue to implement appropriate security measures, given the current circumstances, and therefore calls on the State and representatives to come together to promptly carry out the relevant meetings, with the participation of all authorities and agencies involved, and to submit to the Court an updated reported on the progress that results therein. 27. Lastly, the Court considers that specific measures of protection have been proposed that are not directly related to the adoption of urgent and effective provisional measures that guarantee the protection of the integrity or life of the beneficiaries, but rather that involve measures related to the general situation suffered by Mrs. Rosendo Cantu and her daughter, as a consequence of the facts related to the contentious case and that, in large part, concern the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment; or, where applicable, involve measures in favor of third parties that are not beneficiaries of these provisional measures. For this reason, the Court will not rule on the following measures of protection: a) the provision of a computer and highspeed internet connection for the home of the beneficiaries and computer and internetuse training; b) delivery of a photographic camera; c) facilitate the registration of the daughter in a study center for her to continue her school year, cover expenses related to her education, and fund a babysitter or a trustworthy person to care for the child when Mrs. Rosendo Cantú is not around; d) permanent lighting system on the outside of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s parents home, and a monitoring system camera and security plates in the her sister’s home, e) cover of the costs of psychological care until the beneficiary no longer wants such services; f) coverage of expenses related to professional training that will enable her to have stable employment while she manages the situation of exile she is in; g) coverage of the beneficiaries travel expenses for trips made to visit their relatives and members of their organization, and h) accountability of the military operations in the Mountains of Costa Chica de Guerrero. c) Investigation of the facts that led to the provisional measures 9