11 b) The Prosecutor General is moving forward with investigations about which it has kept the Commission abreast with respect to the precautionary measures. In this respect, the State focused on eight of these measures5 and emphasized that, pursuant to this Court’s jurisprudence, “it is incomprehensible that a supposed delay in the investigations can be sufficient cause to issue provisional measures,” and c) The requirements to enable the issuance of provisional measures by the Court have not been fulfilled in the present case. 18. The Secretariat’s letter of September 14, 2010 whereby, pursuant to the instructions of the President of the Tribunal, the Inter-American Commission was asked to present its observations on the State’s written brief of July 30, 2010 (supra Having Seen 17). 19. The communication of September 13, 2010, and attachment, whereby the Inter-American Commission “reported” to the Court that the Inter-Ecclesial Commission on Justice and Peace “presented new information to the Inter-American Commission [...], in which it made reference to recent threats received by members of this organization.” The Commission indicated that, “specifically, [they] mention[ed] alleged threats received by the teams based in Buenaventura and in the department of Cauca[,] which forced them to suspend work in the area, just like the threats received by Danilo Ruedo [sic] in Bogotá.” Based on the foregoing, the Commission argued that, “the beneficiaries’ claims confirm the information that has been proffered before the Court in the request for provisional measures, which tends to show that the members of the ICJP find themselves in a situation of extreme gravity and vulnerability, and that their lives and right to humane treatment remain at risk of imminent harm.” The Inter-American Commission attached a written document addressed to them by the ICJP. 20. The communication of September 14, 2010, and attachment, whereby the Inter-American Commission “reported” to the Court that the ICJP “presented new information to the Inter-American Commission [...], in which [the ICJP] declared that [on September 14, 2010], ‘a source that wished to remain anonymous reported that a couple weeks earlier state agents [had] received [...] money in exchange for following three members’ of the organization.” The Commission indicated that the ICJP also reported that “on September 12, 2010, members located in Caracolí, in the territory of Curvaradó, ‘were harassed, intimidated, and photographed’ by paramilitaries.” Based on the foregoing, the Commission argued that “the beneficiaries’ claims confirm the information that has been proffered before the Court in the request for provisional measures, which tends to show that the members of the ICJP find themselves in a situation of extreme gravity and vulnerability, and that their lives and right to humane treatment remain at risk of imminent harm.” The considered by the beneficiaries […],” which did not imply that the beneficiaries could not then present “new resumes of other people they trusted that did fulfill the previously established objective requirements.” The beneficiaries “selected one […] of the five and asked to be sent more resumes […].” They were then sent five more, which are presently being “studied and considered” by the ICJP members. 5 “Located 12495-Illegal interceptions A.D.S.”, “Located 12753-Illegal interceptions A.D.S.”; Located 110016000049200501561”; “Located 110016000049200918171-Threats Non-Governmental Organizations”; “Located 1100160000627200880065-Kidnapping of Yimi Armando Jansasoy Muñoz”; “Located 196986000633200800314-Case of Baja Naya”; “Located 270016001100200801047-Threats Members Inter-Eclesial Commission of Justice and Peace”, and “Investigation 052346000326200880082”.