3 measures may continue, without involving any risk to the beneficiaries. The State mentioned that it was open and willing to discuss the criteria for performing a risk assessment; b) regarding the investigation of threats and telephone tapping in relation to María Nodelia Parra, the State reminded that the investigation of the alleged threats began in October 1995. It reported that the preliminary investigation stage is in progress since the individuals who committed the acts could not be identified and that to commence criminal pre-trial proceedings the law requires that the accused be identified; that did not happen in this case. Despite the proceedings carried out, it was not possible to establish actual occurrence of the alleged threats and, therefore, identify the corresponding individuals. In order to perform all possible proceedings, the prosecutor who had previously taken part in the case ordered special measures such as gathering periodic information from the telephone company regarding the beneficiary and periodic interviews to María Nodelia Parra to establish the occurrence of new threats or telephone tapping. For many years now, the Technical Investigative Corps examined the telephone lines and reported no news on the matter; and during the interviews performed, Nodelia Parra indicated that she did not suffer new threats; and a) regarding the implementation of the provisional measures, the State indicated that the safety protection scheme for María Nodelia Parra consists in a van and two escorts with registered guns, in addition to the protection provided by the Protection Office of the Ministry of Interior and Justice. 9. The comments of the representatives to the report of the State made at the public hearing, whereby they represented, among other things: a) regarding the validity of the measures, the reasons why the Court decided to maintain the measures on July 4, 2006, have not changed to date. The representatives reminded that in 1997, the State requested to analyze the lifting of the provisional measures, based on the representatives�� request, and to maintain those measures while “the risk circumstances continue, taking into account that domestic proceedings have already been initiated”. The representatives claimed that the State has large expectations regarding the efforts made to progress on criminal investigations regarding the forced disappearance of the victims of the instant case and that the source of the risk for the beneficiaries is associated with such criminal investigation. They stated that it would be illogical to lift the measures adopted in the instant case since that would result in discouraging any furthering of investigations. As to the situation of Arias-Alturo, the representatives stated that the danger is that he might not contribute to the investigation since he claimed to fear for his safety and is willing to offer information he did not provide before due to that fear. The representatives stated that whenever their reliability is at stake, protection should be maintained. In the case of María Nodelia Parra, it was indicated that this person has never ceased in its efforts to promote the investigation of the forced disappearance of Isidro Caballero-Delgado; therefore, its claim before the courts must lead to a risk assessment that covers more than a direct threat. Even if the beneficiary stated that she received no direct threat, furthering the