5 officers to protect the beneficiaries, notwithstanding it has been placed at issue the fact that the number of police officers is not enough or that on certain occasions, with no reason at all, the protection so ordered was not provided. 14. In relation to the different versions related to the supply of bulletproof vests by the State for the personal security of Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza, the representatives informed in the brief of December 21, 2007, that “no bulletproof vests [have been given] for their protection.” However, previously, they had informed that the "bulletproof vest [of Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza] was seized on January 15, 2007 by a Technical Sergeant 1st class” according to the Seizure Record made on that day.5 15. Moreover, the Court notes that the State has asserted that Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza would have attacked, at least on two occasions, his guardians, among other conducts attributed to him, giving rise to several criminal investigations (infra Considering clause 36). 16. Without detriment to the difficulties in their implementation, the Tribunal notes that, during four years, the State has adopted measures to protect the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries, especially by means of police protection and bulletproof vests. 17. Upon ordering the State to adopt the measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries, the Court did not determine the particular manner to provide the protection so ordered. However, it ordered that said protective measures should be implemented in an effective way and, especially, by means of mechanisms for participation created between the beneficiaries or their representatives and the state authorities in charge of planning and implementing such measures. The Tribunal notes that, in the instant case, no mechanisms for participation or collaboration between the State and the beneficiaries' representatives have been created. 18. Lastly, the Court notes that during the enforcement of these measures, Peru has presented information on their implementation. Without detriment to the foregoing, said information has not been forwarded periodically, according to the term of two months established in the orders of the Tribunal in this matter. * * * 19. As to the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures and the corresponding investigation (supra Considering clauses 7 and 8), the State pointed out that: a) “[i]n relation to the criminal proceeding instituted before the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Junin, Peru, in case-file N° 1639-2004 against Luis Augusto Pérez Documet, for the crime of Abduction […] by means of [j]udgment dated August 2, 2007, said Chamber acquitted the accused of the charges brought against him. Furthermore, by means of Final Judgment of 5 Cf. Seizure Record of January 15, 2007 made by Technical Sergeant Alfredo Calderón. Record of Provisional Measures, Volume III; page 1282.