12 34. In its reports the State provided information on three meetings to monitor and coordinate these provisional measures held on May 26, August 26 and October 7, 2010, in which the beneficiaries and their representatives took part, and also the different state entities. The purpose of the meetings was to analyze the situation of the beneficiaries and the operation of their protection scheme, as well as to listen to their concerns in order “to continue advancing in the process of coordinating the measures.” Colombia indicated that, during these meetings, the state entities “made different commitments to guarantee the security of the beneficiar[ies].” 35. The representatives indicated that, during the second half of 2010, they had held several coordination meetings with the State, based on which they also stated that they hoped that “the situation experienced during the first months [of that] year, where the petitioners and the beneficiary file[d] several requests to hold meetings [with the state authorities] that were not answered, would not be repeated.”14 In addition, they advised that a monitoring and coordination meeting was still pending with “local and departmental authorities” at the office of the Civic Committee of Meta, to address the organization‟s situation and to adopt measures to guarantee the continuation of its work in the region. They indicated that the State had undertaken to hold this meeting and that they would advise the date. 36. The Commission assessed the meetings held between the parties positively. 37. The Court assesses positively the monitoring and coordination meetings on this matter held by the parties. The Court reiterates that holding periodic meetings with the representatives of the beneficiaries tends to guarantee their participation in the planning and implementation of the measures of protection ordered in their favor. 15 Furthermore, taking into account the preceding findings concerning the problems that occurred up until October 2010 as regards the implementation of the measures in favor of beneficiary Islena Rey (supra nineteenth considering paragraph), it underlines the importance of such meetings or other forms of communication between the state authorities and the beneficiaries to ensure effectiveness in the planning and implementation of the protective measures. Therefore, the Court urges the State to take all pertinent measures to keep the beneficiaries or their representatives informed of any progress in the measures ordered by the Court and to facilitate their collaboration in the planning and implementation of the measures. D. Regarding the investigations into the facts related to these provisional measures 38. In addition, the representatives referred to the absence of information on any progress made in the investigations into the facts related to these measures. They indicated that “the absence of an effective investigation has resulted in the fact that, 14 years after the murder of Josué Giraldo, [...] there is still no clear answer as to who killed him and who gave the order to end [his] life [...] and the organization[; and that the situation of] impunity existing in the investigation into these facts prevents the victims […] from knowing 14 In this regard, the representatives forwarded with their communications of May 4 and 10, 2010, copies of three letters dated March 5, April 29 and May 4, 2010, addressed by the representatives to the Director of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as a letter of May 7, 2010, addressed by beneficiary Islena Rey to the same Director, requesting her to organize monitoring and coordination meetings with the pertinent state authorities. According to the representatives, these communications were not answered until the meeting held on May 26, 2010. 15 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al., supra note 8, twenty-ninth considering paragraph.