about the way in which he addresses the protection agents.” In any case, “it appeared suspicious” that among the current security personnel, three protection agents “have not complained of the mistreatment that the State is indicating.” With regard to the request of the agent relating to his fear of abuse from the Colonel, the representation alleged that the said request was made “perversely” and with malicious intent, and e) Regarding the domestic protection mechanism regulated by the “Special Law for the Protection of Victims and Witnesses,” the representation questioned why the beneficiaries must be included in the said system, because, in its opinion, the system was established for members of groups composed of individuals with different characteristics. 5 It also indicated that, owing to their training, the agents who perform security tasks under this law conduct themselves towards those they protect in a way that the beneficiary considers inappropriate. 6 He also stated that he had not been given sufficient information on the application of the said law. 7 6. On July 16 and December 6, 2010, May 17 and December 5, 2011, April 12 and November 9, 2012, and July 26, 2013, the Commission indicated that disagreements and difficulties persist in the correct and complete implementation of the provisional measures in favor of the beneficiaries. It affirmed that, although the State had complied with some measures, such as the replacement of vehicles, and “even though it had offered some improvements […], it had not yet provided what it had offered.” The Commission indicated that it awaited recent information on implementation and on the irregularities indicated by the beneficiaries and about the provision of the four radios they had requested. It added that some of the beneficiaries do not have effective protection; consequently, it was essential that the State provide immediate protection to all of them, as well as information on the protection plan for all of them and on the withdrawal of the agents who had been provided. Lastly, it stressed that coordination between the State and the beneficiaries was essential, and also the participation of the latter in the implementation of the provisional measures, and that the State ensure the appropriate mechanisms for this. Considerations of the Court 7. This Court notes that, from November 2009 until February 2010, the State assigned both male and female personnel to provide protection to the beneficiaries, and that at least 5 Mr. Meléndez Quijano has said that “[he and the members of his] family are victims of human rights violations and they should not be given the same treatment that the Victims and Witnesses Protection Law applies in El Salvador to individuals who belong to the maras [youth gangs], who have become informers or witnesses, “testigos criteriados” (witnesses who benefit from a reduction in criminal sentences), victims of a common crime, safe houses, crimes of extortion, kidnappings [and] drug-trafficking, among others.” 6 In this regard, on October 18, 2012, Mr. Meléndez stated that “the police training or the courses received” by the “personnel of the Victims and Witnesses Division […] is different, because they are used to dealing with individuals (members of the mara or gang members), “testigos criteriados” (witnesses who benefit from a reduction in criminal sentences), in the safe houses, on whom they impose rules, they cover their faces (with balaclava helmets), sometimes they subject them physically and, at other times, they handcuff them. This situation reveals that many of the protection agents who come to the home of the Meléndez Quijano family […] want to impose the same way of working.” 7 On October 18, 2012, Mr. Meléndez Quijano affirmed that he was “unaware who was responsible for designating the Unit or Division of the National Civil Police to provide security to the Meléndez Quijano family, because, originally, the beneficiaries were only informed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs […] that the Victims and Witnesses Division […] would be in charge of providing this protection service. Even personnel from the Executive Technical Unit (UTE) had at one time indicated that the measures of security and the situation of the Meléndez Quijano family were not provided for in the Special Law for the Protection of Victims and Witnesses […]; despite this, the State wants to apply the Law to the beneficiaries when it suits them.” 5