15 safety; however, “they said that some of their relatives had chosen to leave the country.” Reportedly, those relatives were: José Álvarez, Linda Álvarez, Erlinda Álvarez, Wendy and Sulni Pérez-Álvarez. Furthermore, the State reported that de la Roca Mendoza family “have stated that they wish no police escort whatsoever,” and e) “the representatives of the petitioners will arrange a meeting to define, on a separate and individual basis, the way in which the measures will be implemented and who will act as interlocutor(s) with the State, focusing on building trust and creating communication channels for each of the three family groups.” 50. That the State requested the Court to disregard the petition to lift the measures filed on February 29, 2008 given that the investigation in this case has been reopened. As regards the coordination of the measures ordered for the benefit of the families of Messrs. Bámaca-Velásquez, Otoniel de la Roca and Santiago Cabrera, Guatemala informed the Court that it will work in coordination with Jennifer Harbury and the representatives, with Mr. Otoniel de la Roca’s son, Kevin Otoniel, and with Mr. Cabrera himself, respectively. 51. That the representatives expressed their gratitude to the State for having withdrawn its request to lift the measures and requested that the same be maintained given that they believed “that the investigation will pose a risk to the beneficiaries of these measures, who are witnesses in the investigation or relatives that are pushing the investigation forward.” Jennifer Harbury made reference to “the upsurge in violence and constant reprisals against all the witnesses and other people involved in this case as well as their next of kin,” and described the case of Otoniel de la Roca and his next of kin as “especially appalling” given that “four of his cousins had been violently murdered” since this Court’s Judgment was entered in 2000. In addition, the representatives stated that, with respect to the measures related to the sisters of Mr. Bámaca-Velásquez specifically, their implementation should be coordinated through Mrs. Harbury or the CEJIL. Furthermore, they requested that the State be required to provide information regarding the investigations that gave rise to the provisional measures and, in particular, in relation to the death of Mr. Otoniel de la Roca’s relatives. 52. That the Commission valued the existence of “an action plan regarding the implementation of the provisional measures [...] that the action plan has been devised taking into account the circumstances of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures” and stated that it is expecting the information to be provided by the State concerning these matters. 53. That the Court notes that, since the last Order of Provisional Measures rendered in the instant case on March 11, 2005, no more threats have been made against Mr. Cabrera and his family or against the Bámaca-Velásquez family. The parties have not provided new information in that connection at the private hearing. However, the Court takes note of the State’s withdrawal of the request to lift the measures and takes into consideration the comments of the parties concerning the alleged reopening of the investigation into the facts of the case, which may pose new risks and, therefore, would warrant the maintenance of these measures. Based on the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to maintain the provisional measures in favor of Santiago Cabrera and his next of kin as well as of the Bámaca-Velásquez family.