4 taken to investigate the facts related to the threats alleged to have been made against Mrs. Karen Fischer. 18. The State’s March 17, 2004 report wherein it stated that it continued to provide security to Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio and Mrs. Karen Fischer, through the National Police Force and the Ministry of the Interior. On the subject of perimeter security, Mrs. Karen Fischer told the State that “she ha[d] never noticed anyone making rounds [...] in the vicinity of her home.” Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, for her part, told the State that “the agents in charge of her security [were] performing their job very professionally.” 19. The additional information supplied by the beneficiaries’ representatives March 18, 2004, wherein they reported that the Vice Minister of the Interior Guatemala had ordered that the security detail assigned to Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga Carpio’s place of work be suspended, as well as those assigned to escort her ensure her personal safety. on of de to 20. The Secretariat’s March 19, 2004 note wherein it again reminded the State to submit a report on the threats alleged to have been made against Mrs. Karen Fischer and, following the President’s instructions, asked the State to report on the status of execution of the provisional measures that the Court had ordered for Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio. 21. The March 23, 2004 brief submitted by the beneficiaries’ representatives wherein they reported that the only security detail suspended had been the one assigned to Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio’s place of work. 22. The Secretariat’s March 25, 2004 note where, following instructions from the President, it requested that the State submit a report on the security detail assigned to Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio’s place of work. 23. The State’s April 6, 2004 report wherein it stated that, through the National Police Force and the Ministry of the Interior, the State continued to provide security to the persons on whose behalf provisional measures were ordered. It pointed out that Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio had told it that she was “satisfied” with the personal security received. The State also acknowledged that the Deputy Minister of the Interior had suspended the perimeter protection at Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio’s place of work. Concerning Mrs. Karen Fischer’s security, the State reported that it was providing “security in the form of constant surveillance and patrolling of the sector in which she lives.” Mrs. Fischer, however, requested that the perimeter measures be intensified and their frequency increased. 24. The April 30, 2004 comments that the representatives of the beneficiaries submitted in regard to the State’s April 6, 2004 report, where they asserted that the facts that necessitated the provisional measures had not been investigated and that Mrs. Karen Fischer continued to be the target of acts of intimidation. They also reported that, according to Mrs. Karen Fischer, “the claim that the Guatemalan State made in its report regarding the perimeter surveillance was not accurate, as she ha[d] never been told anything about this type of surveillance and ha[d] never noticed it.” The representatives also pointed out that the service provided by the security detail assigned to protect Mrs. Karen Fischer “[wa]s not the best, as she herself had to supply them with weapons some time ago.” As for Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, the representatives observed that the State had withdrawn “the