8 Villavicencio Support Structure was conducting the investigation and described some measures it had taken in this regard. It indicated that “there have been some problems” with the investigation, because there were no witnesses to the incident, no surveillance service in the building or security cameras in the sector, and therefore the investigation file had been forwarded to the assignment office so that a prosecutor could be appointed before the specialized judges, in view of the victim's condition as a beneficiary of provisional measures. 18. Regarding the facts denounced by the representatives, the Commission considered that “the effective investigation of the facts was of utmost importance,” especially the complaint filed against the agents in charge of guarding the office of the Civic Committee following the events of August 2010, “which related to alleged activities of state agents that could impair the effectiveness of the protective measures.” a.3 Considerations of the Court with regard to the situation and the measures of protection adopted in favor of the beneficiary Islena Rey 19. Bearing in mind the information provided by the State and the representatives, the Court observes that, for most of 2010, there were problems in the provision of the security service and, as a result, the protection scheme was incomplete (supra sixth and ninth considering paragraphs). However, it notes that the said problems were finally overcome in October 2010, when the escort of trust, proposed by the beneficiary, was hired. The Court assesses positively the efforts made by the state authorities in this regard. Nevertheless, it notes that the escort of trust who was finally hired in October 2010 is the same person who had been proposed originally by the beneficiary in December 2009, when she first asked the authorities to replace the escort (supra ninth considering paragraph). In this regard, it takes note of the information provided by the representatives concerning the uncertainty and confusion as regards who should make the decision about hiring the said escort, and about the requirements that the latter must satisfy (supra ninth considering paragraph). The Court underscores the need for the state authorities to establish clear and direct means of communication with the beneficiaries, which create the trust required for their adequate protection.10 It also highlights that it is essential that the State and the representatives coordinate the implementation of the provisional measures in the instant case, which supposes that all the parties must propose and agree on the measures, if any of them considers that the existing ones are inadequate. 11 20. In addition, the Court takes note of the information provided by the State regarding the risk assessment of the Civic Committee‟s office to determine the need and possibility of implementing security measures in the said building (supra seventh considering paragraph). In this regard, it observes that the State pointed out that it would not be possible to “shield” the said office because the Civic Committee did not own the building. Furthermore, it notes the information provided by the representatives in December 2010, that “to date” the state authorities had not contacted the beneficiary regarding preparation of the said assessment, even though they had asked the Ministry of Interior and Justice, among other matters, to inform them about it in advance, owing to the situation of risk of the organization‟s President, the beneficiary Islena Rey (supra eleventh considering paragraph). With regard to the protection required by the beneficiary Islena Rey, the Court deems pertinent that, in 10 Cf. Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of Novemberr 25, 2010, twenty-eighth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Court of January 31, 2008, twelfth considering paragraph, and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al., supra note 10, twenty-eighth considering paragraph.