4 investigative bodies have, up to now” allow establishing that said incident would seem “to be attributed” to “the FARC guerrillas” and that “it was apparently an attack” against another person that was accompanying Mrs. Rey. The State asserted that it provided security and “the guarantees so that [Mrs. Rey] receive adequate medical treatment.” It indicated that “the medical treatment, fortunately, helped overcome this incident” and it also allowed “the full recovery of Mrs. Rey so that she could keep doing her job.” 7. Moreover, the State denied the statements made by the representatives (infra para. 8) regarding the alleged irregularities attributed to the Law Enforcement Personnel of the area, a piece of information that the State allegedly disregarded. In that respect, it pointed out that “the community” has expressed “its satisfaction with the fact that the State has presence in the area, as well as the benefits derived from such presence.” Finally, the State indicated that Mrs. Rey moved without consideration of the protection plan, and this is why it is contradictory the argument according to which “due to the humanitarian work […] there were no armed guards” and at the same time, “there were flaws in the protection plan.” On the contrary, according to the State, “there are clear signs of the good communication that exist” between Mrs. Rey “and the authorities in charge of her protection”, which is why “there was no coordination flaw.” 8. The representatives pointed out that what occurred in October 2009 was something “extremely serious” and that if Mrs. Rey “had not have […] a fast transport, she would have lost her life.” Furthermore, they indicated that the incidents had “intimidate[d] the community” in relation to the conduct of the Law Enforcement Personnel” and had aroused “fear […] in the members of the Meta Committee to continue doing their work.” In that respect, they informed that, at least, two of the members of the Board of Directors “have expressed that they would take some distance from the Committee for their own safety.” Moreover, they pointed out that “there is no judicial conclusion indicating who the perpetrators of these facts are and which the reasons for the attack were.” They emphasized that the purpose of the activity carried out was “to listen to the complaints of the community regarding the conduct of the law enforcement personnel in the area”, which is why “she could not have been accompanied by armed guards.” They indicated that this humanitarian mission had been informed to the authorities and therefore, it would have been possible to carry out “preventive actions.” In addition, they alleged that the guards knew about said mission and were waiting in a certain place. They expressed “concern” about the alleged “statements made by members of the law enforcement personnel” regarding “the defenseless state in which the dwellers of the area were”, given that nobody would come to “defend their rights” and that, supposedly, a colonel had stated that “the human rights would not return to this little town” and that he had accused the inhabitants of being “collaborators of the FARC guerrilla.” 9. The Commission pointed out that “the results of the investigation” carried out in relation to the attack against Mrs. Rey are still unknown, which reveals, “at least”, “flaws in the security plan.” It further asserted that said attack had had negative consequences for the work of Mrs. Rey and for the members of the Committee, given that “at least, two members” had decided to take distance on some occasion, which denotes “intimidating effects.” 10. The Court notes that, in prior reports, the State acknowledged that there was presence of the ‘Bloque Meta Aguilas Negras’ [Meta Bloc of Black Eagles]” in the