14 and attack against said persons’ lives, supposedly effectuated by paramilitary groups, Police agents, and soldiers from the National Army. Among others, the representative indicated that in an interviewed conducted by mister Fernando Londoño Hoyos and radio broadcasted, the former guerilla member nicknamed “Samir,” allegedly proffered copious defamatory statements against the leaders, companions, and member of Peace Community, specifically against Mr. Eduar Lanchero. 38. The State informed the Court about the opened criminal investigations in which the victim is Mr. Eduar Lanchero. Regarding the protective measures in favor of Mr. Eduar Lanchero, the State informed that “in protective matters, he has an institutional offer to join the Protection Program of the Interior and Justice Ministry, as well as the Protection and Assistance to Victims and Witnesses Program of the Attorney General of the Nation, both of which […] it put in the beneficiary’s knowledge.” Notwithstanding the above, it warned that “admission into these programs require the person’s free and voluntary decision.” Regarding the interview conducted by Mr. Fernando Londoño Hoyos to the former guerrilla member nicknamed “Samir,” the State indicated that “currently there is a sua sponte investigation being conducted at the Prosecution Unit No. 243 in Bogota D.C., on charges of defamation, under No. 05045600032400900130, in which the members of the Peace Community are held as victims.” However, because defamation is a crime prosecuted upon party’s request, the State asked the beneficiaries to formally present the criminal complaint. On information requests that the Court formulated (infra Considering 40), the State indicated that the information was given by the representative and that he has said that he does not want protection programs for Mr. Eduar Lanchero, and thus the State cannot report on existing measures but on offered measures. 39. With respect to the situation of Mr. Eduar Lanchero, the representative argues that the State has referred to “investigations which have not advanced beyond the oldest threats,” and that the State “is quiet about the threats which most implicate its institutions.” Additionally, the representative indicates that that proposal of the State for Mr. Lanchero to take refuge is the existing systems of protection, in the Interior Ministry and in the Attorney General’s Office, “is completely impertinent, since Mr. Lanchero does not have the character of a ‘witness’ who must be protected in order to find refuge in the Attorney General’s system, notwithstanding the serious questions about its efficacy and independence. Neither can Mr. Lanchero accept protection of an organ such as DAS [Security Administrative Department, for its name in Spanish], involved […] in persecution against the Peace Community.” Regarding the request of the State to present a complaint against the declarations of the ex-guerillo alias “Samir,” (supra Considering 38), the representative indicated that “[the] Community does not currently trust in the actions of the justice system.” 40. The Inter-American Commission requested, “[i]n view of the gravity of that reported by the representative, the lack of specific information by the State […], and the context of risk,” that the Court require that State provide “detailed information regarding said actions and implement urgent protective measures with respect to Eduar Lanchero.” 41. Through the Hearing Order of the President of the Inter-American Court, dated May 19, 2010 (supra Having Seen 5), it was expressly requested the Inter-American Commission to present its position regarding the specific situation of Mr. Eduar Lanchero as an alleged beneficiary of the present provisional measures (Considering 22). Particularly, the Court observes that Mr. Eduar Lanchero has been referred to as “companion” of the Peace Community, but not any more specifically as a member of the Community. However,