Visitación Padilla organization and the beneficiary’s residence; the investigation of the denounced facts, and the form of and participation in the meetings to be held by the representatives and the State. In this regard, the Court highlights the need to guarantee the active participation of the State and the representatives in the effective implementation of the instant provisional measures. To this end, it is essential for the representatives to collaborate with the authorities, by presenting the corresponding claims, informing the authorities on the way the protection should be provided to the beneficiary, and attending the meetings so agreed. Similarly, the State must provide the necessary material conditions to comply with its express commitment to provide the measures of protection that the beneficiary considers suitable. b) Information regarding the risk faced by the beneficiary 15. The State informed that it held meetings in February and March 2012, in which it agreed to conduct the patrolling established together with the representatives, both at the beneficiary’s workplace and at her residence. In addition, to facilitate communication between the parties, in February 2012, it was created a list with contact information of the representatives of the State and of the beneficiary. 16. Moreover, in the report of May 22, 2012, the State indicated that “it has encountered a number of limitations [to investigate the threats] as the victim has not consented to appearing before [the] Attorney General’s Office to provide a specific and detailed account of the facts. In addition, there is no authorization for the Attorney General’s Office to continue investigating the case [given that] the crime of threats [...] can only be prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office upon request of the victim, as it is classified as a Public Action Dependent on a Specific Request.” In turn, “the victim has been summoned [to appear before the Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office] on four occasions, and she has still not appeared; in addition [...] three visits have been made to the headquarters of Visitación Padilla organization, workplace of the victim, where it has not been possible to locate her, consequently it is difficult to further the investigation without the victim’s cooperation.” 17. The representatives indicated that since the ordering of the provisional measures, there have been five incidents that have affected the security of the beneficiary, facts that were reiterated during the public hearing, namely: a) The entrance of unknown persons to the headquarters of Visitación Padilla organization on December 31, 2010, during the early hours of the morning; b) On March 21, 2011, unknown individuals threw a tear bomb in the parking lot of the beneficiary’s residence; c) On March 25, 2011, three prisoners transport vehicles parked outside of Visitación Padilla organization, and “approximately 10 policemen” got out of them. At that time, as an alleged measure of protection, the beneficiary and the employees of said institution left said office screaming and calling on neighbors, hence the policemen decided to leave; d) The “suspicious” presence of two unknown individuals outside the headquarters of Visitación Padilla organization on July 12, 2011, at 5.30 p.m., who after insisting “for a few minutes” on entering “to file a claim […] they were picked up by a luxury SUV with tinted windows;” 6