3 5. The briefs of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) of November 5, 1999, February 1, 2000, March 1, 2000, May 9, 2000, September 7, 2000, January 29, 2001, October 3, 2001, February 16, 2002, September 5, 2002, November 21, 2002, January 9, 2003, February 13, 2003, June 6, 2003, September 8, 2003, November 7, 2003, February 6, 2004, March 9, 2004, May 5, 2004, September 23, 2004, December 14, 2004, April 12, 2005, August 12, 2005, November 14, 2005, March 24, 2006, and April 19, 2006, in which it indicated, inter alia: (a) That, regarding the security scheme for María Nodelia Parra, it understood that there was no disagreement regarding the need to implement the measures of protection and ensure that they achieved their purpose, but rather there were difficulties in the implementation of the measures ordered. The Commission regretted that, owing to logistic difficulties, the beneficiary’s safety had been jeopardized. The Commission also considered that the State had not provided information on the investigation into the threats that María Nodelia Parra had received. In this regard, the Commission insisted on the need to investigate the intervention of the beneficiary’s telephone lines, as well as the fact that she had been followed, without any legal authorization, by several individuals; these were presumed to be types of harassment and intimidation; (b) Its concern regarding the transfers between different prisons of Gonzalo Arias Alturo, which the State had not reported. However, once the beneficiary had been located, the Commission insisted on the need for Mr. Arias Alturo’s statement concerning his security and the inexistence of situations of danger for his life and integrity should be rendered before an authority independent of the prison. In this regard, it indicated that it appreciated the information presented by the State, according to which the Boyacá Regional Prosecutor’s Office had conducted an interview with the beneficiary during which he had stated that his “conditions were perfect.” The Commission found that the last report presented by the State on March 24, 2006, was “ambiguous” as regards the alleged request to lift the provisional measures in favor of the beneficiary, because this “statement had been made one year previously; that is, in March 2005.” Moreover, it was unclear why the adoption of security measures should be seen as contradictory to the exercise of rights by the beneficiary Arias Alturo; (c) That it would submit its comments on Élida Gonzalez Vergel when the State had tried to locate her. It also indicated that the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) were in a better position to indicate the steps that should be taken to implement the provisional measures concerning this beneficiary. In addition, it stated that it was not possible to establish a presumption regarding her level of risk or her wishes, because there was no evidence in the file that would allow it to be established that the risk of irreparable damage had been eliminated. Consequently, if the measures were lifted, the Commission considered it would be prudent and necessary to establish the State’s obligation to immediately advise the Court of any information that came to its attention about the beneficiary’s whereabouts. The parties agreed that the eventual lifting of the measures would not imply a ruling on the beneficiary’s situation of danger; a situation that needed to be evaluated when there was news of her whereabouts; and