expressly reiterated its request for ratification of the order of the President of October 25, 2001 (supra having seen 3); it also requested that the provisional measures should be expanded to include the parents and twelve siblings of Digna Ochoa y Plácido, and that they should be implemented in consultation with the interested parties, in the terms established. Lastly, it requested that the State should be required to provide reports every month, instead of every two months, and, consequently, that the period for the Commission to present its observations, once it had received the State’s reports, should be reduced to four weeks. 8. The statement of one of the Commission’s assistants on the factors that she had taken into account when she had agreed that the provisional measures ordered in favor of Digna Ochoa and others should be lifted: When we took the decision to request that the measures should be lifted, we took various factors into consideration. The first was that the Attorney General had closed the investigation; according to the petitioners, this ended the possibility of terminating the impunity in this series of threats and harassment, at that time. I believe that [it is necessary to express a] public mea culpa; we underestimated the sword of Damocles that impunity represented for the physical safety of all of us, […] the members of the PRODH Center, who agreed that the measures should be lifted, because there was no point in continuing to insist on investigations when the State was not undertaking them and refused to continue with them. The lawyer, Digna Ochoa, manifested her frustration with the ineffectiveness of the administration of justice and also, to a certain extent, her confidence that […] acts [such as her homicide] could not happen in present day Mexico. I therefore believe that, in these circumstances, we, the representatives of the victims, and the victims themselves made an error in our calculations; we did not believe that impunity was a sword of Damocles and this error led to fatal consequences for ourselves and for our colleagues. We made a mistake owing to our frustration in the face of the response of the administration of justice and of the State of Mexico itself. 9. The arguments of the State during the same public hearing, in which it referred to: a) Compliance with its commitment to human rights: the State has worked with civil organizations and the relevant Government authorities in order to uproot impunity, and the shameful homicide of Digna Ochoa painfully and dramatically underscores the scope of impunity. Human rights defenders play an essential role in any democratic society, their protection is an obligation for Mexico and work will continue until an environment has been achieved that ensures their safety and fosters the work they carry out as promoters of public wellbeing; b) Its willingness to implement the protection measures for the members of the PRODH Center and Bárbara Zamora López, Leonel Rivero Rodríguez and Pilar Noriega García. It also emphasized that it would always be willing to provide the safety requirements of these human rights defenders with a receptive and flexible attitude and was very open to discussions; c) The implementation of the measures of protection requested for the beneficiaries and, in particular, it mentioned progress in the implementation of the measures in favor of Leonel Rivero Rodríguez and Bárbara Zamora