13 continuity of alleged threats, accusations, intimidation, surveillance, and harassment, as well as a lack of an effective response in investigating these events and in clarifying the status of various criminal complaints on the part of state security agencies,” and e) With the information presented in the present request for provisional measures and in earlier communications, it “considers the requisite situation of extreme gravity and urgency for the issuance of provisional measures to be satisfied in kind, owing to cycles of threats, aggressions, and accusations against the Inter-Ecclesial Commission on Justice and Peace. The nature of the objects threatened – that is, the lives and physical safety of the organization’s members, as well as their ability to continue their work in defense of human rights – constitutes a very serious example of irreparable consequences that [the] request for provisional measures aims to avoid. It is on the other hand relevant to consider the contextual analysis of the situation in which the members of the ICJP operate.” 24. The State’s brief of October 19, 2010 whereby it presented its observations on the communications of the Inter-American Commission of September 13 and 14, 2010 (supra Having Seen 19, 20). In this brief, the State indicated that: a) Regarding the “alleged persistence of impunity in the crimes reported to the authorities,” “it does not follow from the beneficiaries’ statements, given that there are presently 8 ongoing investigations by the Attorney General into the facts [the members] reported.” In this regard, the State reiterated the information presented in its brief of July 19, 2010, received by the Secretariat on July 30, 2010 (supra Having Seen 17), where it referred to the status of investigations currently open in the case; b) “[I]t is astonished to find that in the beneficiaries’ brief they again claim that: ‘impunity persists in the crimes reported,’ [owing to] [the State’s] inability to identify the parties responsible for the conduct, nor the end goals that motivated their commission.” The State remarked that “it must be acknowledged that even though there may have been some obstacles in the conduct of the investigations, independent of the State’s wlll, that have not allowed it to move forward swiftly in search of answers, it cannot be said from this that the State [...] is bringing about impunity.” The State noted that pursuant to the Court’s jurisprudence, the obligation to investigate refers primarly to means rather than results. It therefore affirmed that it is undertaking “all the activities necessary” and that it has done “all [that it can] to guarantee the proper procedural administration of [the ongoing] investigations”; c) “[I]t has held various meetings to monitor and coordinate the precautionary measures with the objective of hearing the beneficiaries’ concerns and harmonizing the measures that are to be implemented.” In this sense, on September 14, 2010, “a meeting was held in the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Division of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, in which among other topics the political character of the measures requested by the members of [the ICJP] was discussed”; d) It “informed the beneficiaries that the National Government had flatly prohibited accusatory remarks on the part of State officials directed at human