4 temporarily relocate Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo, Carmen Johanna Jaramillo-Giraldo, Viviana Barrera-Cruz, and Marina Sanmiguel-Duarte; delivery of communication equipment (cellular phones) to the abovementioned persons (except for Mrs. Jaramillo), and assistance in land transportation. Furthermore, it informed that, since mid-2006, the State has not learnt of any threats or harassment against the beneficiaries. Therefore, the State expressed that “considering that the beneficiaries of the abovementioned measures have not suffered any new threat or any situation that may endanger their rights to life and humane treatment, and that the State has timely adopted the measures agreed with the beneficiaries, it requests the […] Court to analyze the possibility of rescinding the ordered provisional measures.” As regards the investigation, the State informed that there is a record on the facts that motivated the adoption of said measures in the Government Attorney’s Office 125 in Bogotá since it was reassigned on February 14, 2006. The Specialized Government Attorney’s Office of Villavicencio had started said investigation, which was later assigned, under a Court order of October 3, 2005, to the National Human Rights Unit. Said Unit later decided it had no jurisdiction on this matter and reassigned the investigation. In the context of said investigation, authorities drafted a Methodological Program ordering to “define the alleged terrorist threats[;] interview the representative of the Colectivo de Abogados, [and] collect evidence,” which could not be carried out as at July, 2007, although other pieces of evidence were obtained. Furthermore, the State informed of two coordination meetings held on September 14, and November 30, 2005. 5. That the representatives have not submitted any comments on the State’s reports since December 2005. In their last brief of comments, the representatives they asserted that the protection measures –which include delivery of communication equipment, assistance to help the beneficiaries move in case of emergency, and assistance to temporally relocate one of the families in the city of Villavicencio– had been partially implemented. As regards the investigation, they held that no person had been found to be connected to said process. Furthermore, the representatives informed of new acts of aggression that took place in November 2005. Particularly, they notified that “Mrs. Viviana Barrera ha[d] been subjected to harassment, aggression, and intimidation by individuals, and civil and military authorities of the municipality of Mapiripán.” 6. That the Commission has expressed that the State has not given updated information on the effective compliance with all its obligations, such us the temporal relocation of the beneficiaries and the delivery of communication equipment. Therefore, the Commission expressed its concerns about the lack of certainty as regards the current situation of the beneficiaries and the lack of updated information on the State’s protection activities. Furthermore, it held that it was necessary that the beneficiaries submit their comments and that more precise and concrete information as regards the safety condition of each beneficiary and the corresponding protection measures be gathered. As regards the investigation, the Commission stressed the lack of significant progress and that the State failed to provide an explanation regarding the reasons why the collection of certain evidence rendered impossible or was delayed. As regards the lack of updated information on the coordination meetings, the Commission is looking forward to receiving any comments that the representatives are willing to submit. Finally, it concluded that “there are no grounds to affirm that the absence of situations of extreme gravity and urgency, and of imminent irreparable damage to persons justifies the adoption of the provisional measures in the instant case,” and that the failure to implement the measures ordered by the Court in the Judgment on the merits and reparations, with regard to the obligation to investigate the events in the instant case, “has [a] direct impact on the safety conditions of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures and on the persistence of the risk factors justifying [their] adoption and effectiveness.”