6 18. That, in its February 20, 2007 report, the State pointed out that the DPP of the PNC appointed an officer to be responsible for the efficacy of the protection mechanism implemented by said Division in relation to this matter. In subsequent reports, the State failed to indicate whether there had been any changes in such appointment. 19. That the representatives stated that Guatemala had not honored its commitment to appoint a PNC officer to be responsible for security at the FAFG, given that several officers had been in charge of security and there was no one responsible for monitoring and coordinating the necessary actions to that end. In addition, the representatives informed the Court that there had been several changes in the institutions in charge of providing protection and that; as a result, it had been difficult to work with them. In this regard, the representatives stated that it was necessary for the State to define the "coordination in relation to the provision of protection” by specifically determining the institutions responsible for providing protection and the names of the persons in charge, given the restructuring of the Ministry of the Interior. 20. That the Inter-American Commission insisted on the importance of appointing a PNC officer to be responsible for monitoring and coordinating prevention and protection measures in relation to the beneficiaries, as well as for reporting information to the beneficiaries, their representatives and the Attorney General's Office. In addition, the Commission once again stressed the need for the procedures and coordination between the different agencies of the government to be effective and to comply with the commitments made to the beneficiaries. 21. That, in furtherance of the commitments undertaken by the State, it is necessary to appoint a person to be in charge of coordinating the effective implementation of the security measures, which, as can be seen, implies the involvement of several government agencies. * * * 22. That, as regards the commitment to request the SAAS to provide executive security training to the PNC members that provide security to the beneficiaries, the State informed the Court that, even though it had requested the implementation of such training courses, “the requests made by the Presidential Human Rights Commission to the Secretariat of Administrative Matters and Security [had] been unsuccessful given that said Secretariat does not have adequate personnel or resources to provide such professional services." Subsequently, the State pointed out that “although […] arrangements had been made with the National Civil Police Academy through the Ministry of the Interior, the aforesaid training had not been provided due to possible lack of coordination between the divisions of the police institution.” In this connection, the State added that, on April 16, 2008, it requested the Ministry of the Interior to schedule a training course in executive security but that it was impossible to deliver the course because the instructors of the PNC Academy require at lest 20 working days to train security officers. This would affect the provision of security to the beneficiaries of these measures and, therefore, it requested the Ministry of the Interior to reschedule the course taking into account the need to assign temporary substitutes for the security officers that are to take the course. In its last report (supra Having Seen clause No. 3), the State indicated that the training course for the personnel that provides security services to the beneficiaries, scheduled from June 3 to June 23, 2008, did not take place because, at that time, constant threats were being made to the members of the FAFG. 23. That, according to the information provided by the representatives, on June 9, 2008, they agreed with the State that before conducting the aforesaid training “the complete files of