6. Furthermore, although the representatives did not formulate a specific request in regard to Veronica Heredia, the attorney who “handles the cases at the domestic level in hopes of determining the whereabouts of Ivan [ Eladio Torres ] and identifying those responsible for the forced disappearance [ ... ],” reported on the risk she would face. Thus, they argued that on May 18, 2013, Ms. Verónica Heredia met with Mr. Guillermo Flores, beneficiary of the provisional measures, who warned her to be careful and told her that “they would not do anything to her in the city, but on the road, they would put a car in her way, and use the car to tap her car.” According to the representatives , that same day Ms. Heredia traveled from the city of Rada Tilly to the town of Caleta Olivia, 80 miles away, driving through a “desert road where there is no phone signal.” After “a few kilometers of driving [on that] route,” “a red Ranger truck,” whose description matched that of the vehicle stationed in front of the home of Mr. Flores, on May 7, 2013, which was commissioned to the First Police Station of Comodoro Rivadavia in 2003 (infra Considering clause 19). This truck followed her very closely, even when she sped up. “After showing [the driver] of the truck [ ... ] that [she ] was taking pictures with her phone, she gained distance and finally left [the truck behind ] who slowed down significantly.” Ms. Heredia reported what happened to the Association of Lawyers of Argentina. On May 19, 2013, Mr. Flores informed the President of the Association that he had heard on the streets that Ms. Heredia “would end up badly.” According to Mr. Flores, those warnings came "from police officers.” 7. The State noted, in regard to the request for extension of the provisional measures that was filed by the representatives, that “it understood that it “needs to heed to the Court’s decision in the Order of February 13, 2013]”. Notwithstanding, on August 16, 2013, it noted that, “after evaluating the situation of […] María Millacura Llaipén, Marcos Torres, Ivana Torres, Romina Torres, Evelyn Paola Caba, Miguel Ángel Sánchez and Támara Bolívar together with the Ministry of security, it was decided that periodic rounds would continue to be made by agents of the Argentine Coast Guard for a period of 6 months at the homes of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén and of Miguel Ángel Sánchez. Once that period is met, the need to continue with those measures of protection and/or the adoption of other type of measures of protection if the circumstances so require would be determined.” Notwithstanding, according to the State, Ms. Millacura has refused to give notice of these rounds, “reason for which witnesses have been found near the home, and they have signed declarations establishing that they have not witnessed any need for police intervention nor that she faces a risk.”10 On the other hand, in regard to the alleged shots near Ms. Millacura Llaipén’s home, the State provided the email address of General Prefect Hugo Ilacqua,11 informing that “rounds were made […that same day,] and nothing new was detected regarding the shots or other anomalies […].” In this same sense, it noted that “the Chief of the First Police Station […] with jurisdiction in the area near Ms. Millacura’s home had been consulted by phone about whether or not there had been […] complaints and/or actions in relation to gunfire shootings in the area, and he responded that there had not been.” In regard to Miguel Ángel Sánchez, in a note of the Secretariat of Human Rights of June 27, 2013, it was stated that “the scheduled rounds [were also] carried out with no abnormalities or circumstances that put 10 Note DDHH No. 452/12 of September 19, 2013, Ministry of Security of Argentina (case file on provisional measures, folio 6829). Furthermore, the State submitted to the Court another note from the Secretariat on Human Rights of the Nation of June 27, 2013, in which it stated that the Ministry of Security of the Nation had reported that "during the rounds made at Ms. Millacura Llaipén’s home, no signs or circumstances were observed that could pose a risk to the safety of those being protected.” Cf Note SDH-DAI No.: 419/13, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (case file on provisional measures, folio 6267). 11 The email provided by the State was sent from an email address that is not official, nor has an electronic signature or other means of verifying its authenticity. However, the authenticity of the document was not questioned by the representatives and the Commission. 5