5. The State reported that on March 8, 2010, a meeting was held between the representatives of the beneficiaries and the authorities involved in the present case, in which Mexico accepted the offer made by the representatives to have the risk assessment carried out by Peace Brigades International of Mexico (hereinafter “Peace Brigades”) or by the United Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Mexico (hereinafter “Office in Mexico of the High Commissioner). It reported that Peace Brigades expressed that it would be able to carry out risk assessment to the beneficiaries, and that the Office of the High Commissioner in Mexico noted that “it would follow the process of the presentation of the study of the analysis of the risk.” It affirmed that the document drafted by Peace Brigades “is accepted by the State as the appropriate mechanism to comply with the [operative] paragraph of the Order of February 2, 2010.” 6. The representatives indicated that “the intervention of actors with proven experience has been sought, [...] even if it means a process of gradual adoption of appropriate measures for the serious situation at hand.” They said that by having accepted the document prepared by Peace Brigades, the State “identified the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that is associated with the risk in which the beneficiaries live.” 7. Regarding the persistence of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency and need to avoid irreparable harm, the representatives reported on the specific facts that took place after the adoption of the provisional measures: a) on December 31, 2009, “a person was knocking at the door of [the] home [of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu], asking for her.” One of the brothers opened the door and informed that she was not available “to which the person looking for her, answered that he would return later. Nevertheless, he did not return.” Taking this into consideration, there are “very few people who know [her] address and that her brother[s] can identify all of the persons who visit in order to avoid risks”; b) on January 20, 2010, the father of the beneficiary reported that a woman “[member] of a family from Caxitepec who informally collaborates with the Army in the region [told her] mother […] that both [the beneficiary] and her father […] ran a serious risk ‘because they are looking for them to kill them […] and that the money received for the judgment will not do any good because she will be dead,’” and c) on February 2, 2010 “around 23:30 [Mrs. Rosendo Cantú] received a call to her cellular phone, to which only some [of her representatives] and her family know the number, where an unknown masculine voice asked if she was Mrs. […] Rosendo Cantu. She answered she was not, but the voice kept insisting, in a threatening tone, […] until [she] hung up the phone.” They indicated that “the majority of threats and harassments […] came after the filing of the case before the Court[,and] after August 14, 2009 [the beneficiary] went before the Public Prosecutor’s of the ordinary [civil] forum to expand her ministerial declaration, [when] she identified two soldiers as the aggressors.” They added that the various facts, and particularly, “the kidnapping attempt on her daughter,”4 have lead to her “currently being accompanied by Peace Brigades International and [that] she change her address and her routine.” They concluded that “the absence of new facts to report […] does not comport with the deactivation of the risk [...], but rather that measures for protection have been adopted by their own means.” Moreover, due to the facts suffered, and upon having 4 Cfr. Matter of Rosendo Cantú et al. Provisional Measures regarding México. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2010, Having Seen Clause 4 and Considering Clauses 8 and 12. 3