2 information on the beneficiaries’ involvement in decisions related to implementation of the Court’s orders. 4. The briefs of the State of August 24, 1999, September 28, 1999, November 29, 1999, January 28, 2000, April 5, 2000, May 29, 2000, July 27, 2000, December 1, 2000, February 21, 2001, April 26, 2001, June 13, 2001, August 9, 2001, October 10, 2001, December 6, 2001, February 7, 2002, May 2, 2002, July 11, 2002, October 7, 2002, December 2, 2002, January 2, 2003, March 5, 2003, May 5, 2003, August 4, 2003, October 8, 2003, December 12, 2003, February 5, 2004, April 6, 2004, June 7, 2004, August 19, 2004, November 10, 2004, February 2, 2005, June 13, 2005, October 7, 2005, January 19, 2006, and March 24, 2006, in which it indicated, inter alia, that: (a) María Nodelia Parra had a security system based, inter alia, on the presence and protection of two men who carried out escort duties, a vehicle and other logistic elements. The Administrative Department of Security (DAS) was responsible for providing security. The security scheme has always been respected and various difficulties related to the logistic elements and the presence of an escort who was on leave have been overcome. In addition, the Prosecutor General’s Office [Fiscalía General] opened a preliminary investigation into the threats that the beneficiary allegedly received, and this was in the “early stages, when evidence was being collected.” There had been nothing new to report, nor any serious or substantial problems related to Mrs. Parra’s security situation; (b) Regarding Gonzalo Arias Alturo, the National Penitentiary Institute (INPEC) had been instructed to adopt the necessary measures to ensure his life and physical integrity in the Combita Prison, in the Department of Boyacá. The measures adopted had been effective, according to the beneficiary himself, who had told an independent agency, the Boyacá Regional Prosecutor’s Office, that he felt safe and protected by the prison authorities; that he had no “security problems and ha[d] not been the victim of any kind of illtreatment.” On March 2, 2006, Gonzalo Arias Alturo indicated that he agreed that the provisional measures ordered in his favor should be lifted. This statement could be found in a document “sent to the Director of the establishment more than a year ago”; (c) It has had no information on the whereabouts of Élida González Vergel since 1998 and efforts to obtain such information have been unsuccessful. Consequently, the State requested that the provisional measures granted in favor of this beneficiary should be lifted, because “the absence of any news from her [could] suggest that she wished to remove herself from the sphere of action of both the State and the petitioners.” Finally, the State indicated that “if the [beneficiary] should eventually reappear, and if it is considered necessary […], it saw no reason why a new order for provisional measures in her favor could not be issued”; and requested: (d) That its reporting schedule be extended to every six months, owing to the “stabilization of the security situation” of María Nodelia Parra and Gonzalo Arias Alturo.