State expressly agreed to submit “a report indicating both the actions taken by the National Police in the context of the conduct of the study on the Level of Risk and Type of Threat and the results thereof" (supra Considering clause 10). However, when communicating the results of those studies, the State merely indicated the level of risk of the beneficiaries and informed on a protective measure adopted in consequence of said result, without providing the supporting documentation. The Tribunal reiterates that without adequate information by the State, it cannot properly assess the implementation of the present provisional measures. 16. Moreover, the Court notes that, on some occasions, the lack of communication and trust between the parties had created difficulties in the implementation of these measures. To this end, the Court notes that, regarding some of the facts denounced by the representatives as new situations of harassment against the beneficiaries, the State had later on clarified that they were regular inspections and patrol rounds of the 'comprehensive protection' scheme put into operation in favor of the beneficiaries (supra Considering clause 10). The Tribunal highlights the importance for the State to allow the participation of the beneficiaries and their representatives in the planning and implementation of the provisional measures, so that they are fully informed of the security measures adopted in their favor. Moreover, it urges the beneficiaries and their representatives to work in close collaboration with the state authorities in order to implement the measures in an effective manner. 17. Additionally, this Court takes note of the latest facts reported by the representatives, according to which “in the last months of 2011,” police officers had allegedly undertaken investigations in order to incriminate the Rodríguez Quintero brothers. The Court also notes that the State has repeatedly denied the existence of a campaign of harassment against the beneficiaries. However, it observes that it does not have specific observations from Colombia in relation to these recent allegations made by the representatives. Accordingly, the Court deems it is appropriate for the State to specifically refer to these alleged facts in its next report on the implementation of the present measures. 18. In light of the aforementioned considerations and taking into account the extraordinary risk to which the beneficiaries are exposed, according to the assessment studies conducted by the State itself, the Court considers that, prima facie, there still exists a situation of extreme gravity and urgency to the detriment of the beneficiaries, which could cause irreparable harm to their rights. Therefore, the Court considers it is appropriate to maintain the provisional measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Wilmar Rodríguez Quintero, Yimmy Efraín Rodríguez Quintero, Nubia Saravia, Karen Dayana Rodríguez Saravia, and Valeria Rodríguez Saravia. 2. Regarding the situation of beneficiary William Rodríguez Quintero and the request to rescind the measures ordered in his favor 19. The State requested the Court to examine the possibility of rescinding the measures granted in favor of William Rodríguez Quintero, “who was convicted and is currently serving a sentence of seventeen (17) years.” The State informed that the beneficiary was arrested on August 6, 2010, under preventive detention, and that “at no time did agents of the Police” prepare a press release in order to broadcast it through radio stations. The State “emphatically” reiterated that there is no strategy of persecution and harassment against Mr. William Rodríguez Quintero or his family members and that it “deeply regrets that such a serious accusation was made without sufficient factual support.” The State indicated that the beneficiary is detained in the Correctional and Prison Center of Ocaña, “where there have been no safety problems” and that “his fundamental rights are fully guaranteed” through the different facilities of said center. Regarding the representatives’ request that medical and psychological care be provided to this beneficiary, Colombia highlighted that said care 7