5 police protection at her place of work without any advance notification and for no reason and that [...] the security detail at her workplace had not been reinstated.” The representatives asked the Court to call upon the State to: properly and efficiently implement the provisional measures ordered by the […] Court on behalf of Mrs. Mart[h]a Arrivillaga de Carpio and Mrs. Karen Fis[c]her[;] report on the State’s decision to alter the regime of personal protection assigned to Mrs Arrivillaga by suspending police surveillance at her place of work; perform the investigation that the […] Court has repeatedly requested and report its findings. 25. The Commission’s May 4, 2004 comments on the State’s April 6, 2004 report, wherein it observed that “it [wa]s the State’s responsibility to report the reasons why the Ministry of the Interior [had] decided to suspend the security provided to Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio at her place of work, and to report on the weapons and other logistical materials supplied to those assigned to protect Mrs. Karen Fischer to enable them to perform their security functions properly.” The Commission further pointed out that the State had failed to provide information regarding “the investigation into the facts that necessitated the provisional measures in question,” and the facts associated with the recent threats allegedly made against Mrs. Fischer. 26. The Secretariat’s May 5, 2004 note where, following the President’s instructions, it again asked the State to submit detailed information on: 1) the specific measures taken to investigate both the recent allegations of threats against Mrs. Karen Fischer and the facts that necessitated the provisional measures in question; and 2) the security detail assigned to Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio’s place of work. 27. The State’s May 27, 2004 report wherein it observed, inter alia, that it was not providing perimeter security at the former residence of Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, as she no longer lived there. However, it added that after a visit from members of the Sacatepéquez National Police Force, Mrs. Arrivillaga de Carpio stated that she had two National Police officers at her service and that she did not believe that “perimeter security [wa]s needed at her new residence.” The State also confirmed that the Second Deputy Minister of the Interior had suspended the perimeter measures at Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio’s place of work. Concerning Mrs. Karen Fischer, the State reported that it was providing perimeter security at her place of residence. It also stated that Mrs. Fischer “ha[d] not agreed to the detailing of police officers [and that she had] suggested the names of the persons that she wanted to provide her personal security measures, whose services the Ministry of the Interior [did] retain.” 28. The Secretariat’s May 28, 2004 note in which it reminded the State that the Court was expecting submission, forthwith, of the State’s report on the specific measures it had taken to investigate the recent threats allegedly made against Mrs. Karen Fischer and the facts that necessitated the provisional measures. The Secretariat further stated that it was also expecting to receive an explanation of why the security detail assigned to Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio’s place of work had been suspended. 29. The representatives’ June 23, 2004 submission wherein they stated that Mrs. Karen Fischer had been the victim of an attempt on her life on June 19, 2004 that left one member of her personal security detail “gravely” injured.