to obtain [these items] because, owing to the shift system, the Ministry of the Interior considers that they work around 14 or 15 of the 30 days, [so that] it does not provide those mechanisms.” In addition, it insisted that the decrease in the number of agents had been notified to the FAFG Director on February 17, 2009. 13. Regarding the information on the risk assessment submitted by the State, during the public hearing, the representatives indicated that it focuses “a great deal on the issue of the family,” but “there is no real assessment of the work being done by the Foundation, [… or] a comparison […] between the work being carried out and the increase in the threats”; in other words, an assessment of “who [the] exhumations may be making nervous.” Subsequently, they indicated that, starting in October 2009, members of the National Civil Police had come to Fredy Peccerelli’s house and the FAFG offices to make a risk assessment, but each time “the agents were unaware of the reason for or the incidents that had led to the said assessment”; that “[w]hen these agents arrived to make the assessment, they did not have the complaints concerning the incidents, which [were] provided by the beneficiaries”; that the said police agents merely asked a few questions about “the situation of the beneficiaries,” and never inspected the Foundation’s premises or the beneficiaries’ homes. In addition, the representatives indicated that they had not received the three reports prepared as a result of these assessments and were unaware of the respective conclusions. 14. Prior to the public hearing, the Commission stated that it “did not have any indication that [the beneficiaries had] agree[d] to the measure to [decrease the protection].” In addition, taking into consideration the substantial reduction in protection and the reactivation of the threats, it indicated that “the measures of protection [had] not been entirely sufficient or efficient, which kept the beneficiaries in a situation of extreme gravity [and] urgency.” The Commission asked the Court to urge the State to “proceed immediately to provide the security agents necessary to guarantee the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries, and to design a comprehensive protection plan, establishing who will be in charge of coordinating and executing it.” In its observations of August 27, 2010, the Commission indicated that it considered that the information provided by the State as to why it had reduced the protection of the beneficiaries was insufficient, and did not respond to the concerns expressed by the beneficiaries. It also reiterated “the need to have adequate information regarding the measures the State is taking to ensure that the protection measures required in the orders of the Court are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives.” 15. During the public hearing the Commission indicated that the reduction in the security personnel responsible for the protection of the beneficiaries in this matter “has somewhat denatured the purpose of the provisional measures,” insofar as “it has been necessary to decide who will be protected.” It stated that the protection “should not exclude anyone,” but rather there should be effective protection for both the members of the Foundation and its director and his family. The Commission indicated that, although the State had undertaken to advise the FAFG of any change or transfer of the agents, “this did not occur, and [its] protection was decreased substantially.” Furthermore, in its observations of February 2011, the Commission insisted that Guatemala must guarantee the safety of all the beneficiaries. Regarding the scarcity of resources as a reason for the reduction of personnel, it considered that this was also revealed by the fact that the beneficiaries had to supply accommodation, food and travel expenses for the agents who were providing them with security, and asked the State to provide more information in this regard. In relation to the risk assessments, it added that the risk factor or the elements that the State had taken into consideration to establish whether the risk was increasing or decreasing at certain times was unknown. In this regard, it indicated that, at certain times, the Foundation’s work “is more visible,” depending on the type of case it is 6