4 investigation proceedings she initiated poses certain inherent risks. The representatives added that they ignored if a risk assessment had been performed in relation to María Nodelia Parra and they claimed that said information was required to issue an opinion on such assessment and its outcome. Furthermore, they rejected the arguments of the State upon representing: i) as regards domestic protection measures: that allegations are contradictory; either there is no situation of risk and hence no protection is required; or the risk does exist and the provisional measures should be maintained; ii) as regards the time the measures remained in force: that this results from lack of success in the investigations and the impunity situation in which the case is enmeshed; iii) as regards new events: that “of course, no new events occurred”, given that the risk is related to the criminal investigation, that impunity continues regarding this case and that the risk would re-emerge if investigations are resumed; iv) lastly, they disagreed as to the presence of an increased security environment in the country, which in any case should not be discussed in connection with a provisional measure since in their opinion the general situation is more serious. Lastly, the representatives pointed out that the State’s allegation that the situation of risk may result from trade union activities carried out by María Nodelia Parra is a “new and unexpected” allegation and the representatives never claimed that those activities were the grounds to adopt or maintain the measures. Based on the reasons stated above, the representatives requested that the provisional measures be maintained; b) regarding the protection scheme, it was reported that since 2003, various requests have been made to change the vehicle assigned to María Nodelia Parra due to the problems said vehicle had and the representatives said that the beneficiary does not enjoy any protection scheme other that as set forth in these provisional measures. They explained that the provisional measures are implemented through the domestic protection mechanism, but that the capacity as beneficiaries of provisional measures facilitates the implementation of the protection. They explained that, in the particular case of María Nodelia Parra, a risk assessment that establishes a “normal" level of risk -pursuant to the domestic system- would not justify implementing a protection system such as the one in force; and c) regarding the investigation of the threats alleged by María Nodelia Parra, the representatives claimed that such investigation was unsuccessful and that since 1995, proceedings are at preliminary stage. They reminded that three situations were reported to the authorities: i) harassment by a police officer against María Nodelia Parra when her father died, which led to the commencement of proceedings No. 589; it was stated that no investigation measures were adopted in those proceedings, including photographic identification of the person involved while serving in the police; ii) follow-up of motorcycling police officers, as reported by the escort of the Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (Administrative Security Department); however, the escort’s description was not used to identify the police officers; and iii) tapping of her telephone line, which was examined various months after the events.