7 October 17, 2009.8 They underscored that the rural communities had also indicated that the paramilitary group was responsible for the said attack, even though the State has attributed responsibility to the FARC. 16. In addition, the representatives advised that the beneficiary had also suffered harassment by state agents. In particular, they mentioned two occasions on which she, and the vehicle that was part of her security scheme, had been detained and searched by the National Police.9 They indicated that, on both occasions, the Meta Chief of Police and the person responsible for human rights of the said entity had to intervene to enable them to continue on their way and to end the harassment. The representatives considered that the recent facts, together with the “difficult context” in which the Committee carries out its activities, “added to the serious irregularities in the protection granted by the State, are sufficient reasons to affirm that the current situation continues to be of extreme gravity and urgency.” Also, in their observations of February 16, 2011, the representatives added that the beneficiary Islena Rey had recently been summoned by the National Army on several occasions to testify in a case of an alleged forced disappearance, even though the military tribunals do not have jurisdiction for this type of crime; consequently, they asked whether this type of summons and the application of the military criminal justice system were admissible. 17. Regarding the incident that took place on August 15, 2010, at the office of the Civic Committee of Meta, in October 2010 the State indicated that “[w]hen the alleged theft took place [at the said office], it was arranged that the police would provide security to the building.” In addition, it indicated that the District Commander and the Head of the Judicial Police of the department had been ordered to send patrols to interview Islena Rey and to determine the condition of the office. It added that a National Police patrol car accompanied the beneficiary to the Rapid Reaction Unit so that she could file the corresponding complaint. Based on the foregoing, Colombia emphasized that it had “acted with the urgency that the case called for.” It explained that, based on the beneficiary‟s request, a police unit had been placed outside the building where the Committee is located while the door was being repaired. Regarding the representatives‟ allegations that police officers had allegedly turned on some of the organization‟s computers and accessed the Committee‟s web pages and files, the State indicated that Islena Rey had filed a report before the Secretariat of the Police Committee to Receive, Handle, Evaluate and Process Complaints (CRAET); this “was processed by the Disciplinary Control Office” which ordered that the corresponding investigations be opened. Colombia emphasized that, despite the problems related to the “alleged conduct of some police officers,” both the Criminal Investigation Unit and the Human Rights Unit of the Police had been “very willing to provide support and collaboration to Islena Rey, and the security and escort she required.” Subsequently, in its report of December 2010, the State added that the 27th Local Prosecutor's Office of the 8 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of February 2, 2010, sixth to tenth considering paragraphs. 9 In a communication of November 20, 2010, addressed to the Meta Chief of Police, submitted as an attachment to the representatives‟ communication of December 13, 2010, the beneficiary Islena Rey stated that, on November 17, 2010, when two of her escorts got out the vehicle assigned for her protection, two police officers approached them, demanding that one of the escorts hand over his official weapon. The beneficiary indicated that, although the police were shown the identification documents and the permit to carry a weapon, one of the police officers insisted that the weapon was being carried illegally, and even “arbitrarily searched [her] daughter‟s bag, [because], according to him, it contained concealed weapons.” She indicated that the police officers did not allow them to continue on their way home, until a sergeant arrived and “offered apologies on behalf of the institution.” Lastly, she emphasized that, when she asked the police officer who had detained them about his “abusive and disrespectful” attitude, the officer said that he had followed the appropriate “procedure” and therefore had nothing to explain. Based on the above, the beneficiary asked the Meta Police Chief to inform her whether the police officer “was obeying an order from his superiors.”