the city of Villavicencio, the place where the Civic Human Rights Committee of Meta has its headquarters [, …] to discuss with local and regional authorities, matters concerning the protection of the beneficiary and the offices of the organization [and that it] ha[d] proceeded to implement those physical measures of protection that are consistent with Colombian regulations.” In its report of November 15, 2012, the State reiterated that Islena Rey´s protection scheme includes police inspections at her workplace. The Inter-American Commission stated that it did not have complete and detailed information on that point. A.4. Considerations of the Court regarding the situation and measures of protection adopted in favor of the beneficiary Islena Rey Rodríguez 23. As to the State restructuring process and its implications (supra Considering paras. 7 to 14), the Court notes that the abolition of the DAS, the organization in charge of implementing the protection measures for Islena Rey Rodríguez, implied that its functions had to be transferred and that temporally there was no certainty about the specific consequences and conditions of the beneficiary’s protection scheme. Specifically, the Court confirms that the functions of the DAS were extended on several occasions, due to their imminent expiry, and takes note of the uncertainty caused regarding the future operation of the protection scheme, given that the regulatory frameworks for the two options offered by the State, namely, that the service would be either be provided by a private operator or by a new state agency, were adopted several months after the decision was taken to abolish the DAS. 10 24. The Court recalls the importance of allowing beneficiaries and their representatives to participate in the planning and implementation of provisional measures, so that they are fully informed of the security measures adopted in their favor. 11 In that sense, the Court commends the process of dialogue and consensus undertaken in response to the concerns and objections raised by the representatives. From the information provided by the parties, the Court understands that this process concluded with the adoption of a model whereby a private operator would take on the physical implementation of the protection measures, with exclusive functions of logistical support, but the State would assume direct responsibility for its obligations to protect the beneficiary and maintain a direct relationship between the beneficiary and her representatives and the recently created National Protection Unit of the Ministry of the Interior (supra Considering paras. 10 to 13). 25. At the same time, this Court notes that problems have arisen in the operation of the beneficiary’s scheme, specifically with the vehicle, per diem allowances, road tolls and fuel expenses, as well as with the procedures established for authorizing her movements in urgent situations. In this regard, it is essential that the State and the representatives coordinate the implementation of the provisional measures, which implies that the parties must propose and agree upon measures, in case one of the parties considers that the existing ones are not adequate. 12 The Court appreciates the fact that, as a result of various follow-up meetings and a fluid dialogue between the parties, those problems have been 10 The Court had taken note of those changes in its previous Order. Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of February 22, 2011, Considering paragraph 21. 11 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of July 4, 2006, Operative paragraph 4, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of June 26. 2012, Considering paragraph 16. 12 Cf. Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of January 31, 2008, Considering paragraph 12, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 25, 2010, Considering paragraph 28. 8