about the difficulties that they may come across in the implementation of the measures and possible solutions thereto is essential. According to the Commission, the information presented by the State is not enough to assess whether the measures of protection granted in favor of the beneficiary have been effective, in particular in relation to the protection granted outside the city of Caracas. 11. Regarding the discontent expressed by the representatives and the Commission at the manner in which the measures have been implemented, the State indicated that “the courts of the Republic have the executive authority to order the police bodies to provide protection to a particular citizen, as has been provided for the beneficiaries of the measures” and that “from the information presented by the beneficiary, it would not appear that the beneficiary had asked the court for a broadening of the territory within which protection is granted.” Finally, it argued that the beneficiary had not expressed interest in improvements to the protection she receives, nor had she presented the information necessary to improve the protection provided by security forces. b) Information on possible acts of harassment 12. The representatives reported that Ms. Guerrero Galluci and another person were accused in a criminal proceeding brought before the 6th Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of the State of Guárico of committing the crime of aggravated theft. In that case, the Third Control Tribunal of the State of Guárico de Valle de la Pascua issued arrest warrants for both accused individuals on August 24, 2007. According to the State, two days later, Mrs. Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci appeared before the court, which granted provisional release instead of deprivation of liberty. In addition, it indicated that “the arrest warrant [was] issued in full compliance with the law and [did] not constitute in any way an act of harassment.” The representatives pointed out that the criminal investigation “was declared null and void due to defects of unconstitutionality” and they sustained that “the arrest warrant issued by the trial court is an act of harassment […] that w[ould] psychologically affect the beneficiary and w[ould] put her at risk”. Moreover, they stated that according to the terms of the conditional release, Mrs. Guerrero-Galluci has to appear before the Office of the Bailiff of the Judicial Circuit every 10 days; to do so, the beneficiary must travel through the state of Guárico, “where she no longer lives due to security issues […] and where she has continu[ed] to be threatened publically by the Governor of the State during his weekly radio show.” 13. Elsewhere, the State addressed the criminal proceeding in which Ms. Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci is supposedly to appear as a witness for a journalist who has been accused of the alleged crime of false accusation. The proceeding is in the investigative phase. Regarding this, the State argued that due to the nature of the case and the time that had elapsed since the filing of the accusation, Mrs. Guerrero Galluci would not be at risk since "to date, she [has] not received any kind of threat." For its part, the Commission argued that it should be taken into account that said case is in the investigative phase. c) Information on the investigation of the facts 14. The State presented information regarding two ongoing criminal proceedings. First, it addressed the investigation related to the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the instant provisional measures, that is, the criminal investigation before the First Instance Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Guárico against two officials with the Guárico State Police for the alleged commission of the crime of attempted murder and conspiracy to the detriment of Maria del Rosario Guerrero Galluci and another person. The 11th Prosecutor's Office of the State of Guárico and the 62nd Plenipotentiary Prosecutor's Office 5