by the beneficiaries will be taken into account when assessing whether the Court is justified in maintaining these provisional measures. 2. Regarding the implementation of the provisional measures 7. The State provided information on “the measures of protection that the beneficiaries of these provisional measures have,” at this time: a) Regarding the beneficiaries Abraham Mendez, his wife, and five children, the State advised that they were not receiving safety measures, because they had not agreed to these measures being provided by State agents. The State advised that, in the risk assessment made of Abraham Mendez, he requested that persons of his election be hired and that they be paid a fee by the Ministry of the Interior. The State indicated in some of its reports that it was “willing to propose a list of police agents who [could] be considered suitable for the safety of the beneficiaries, and who were extremely upright and capable.” b) Regarding the beneficiary Jorge Carpio Arrivillaga, the State advised that he has had a personal security system since 2004; the "security is provided by the actual Personal Protection and Security Division of the National Civil Police.” It added that two agents of the National Civil Police had been assigned to him. The State also advised that he had requested one more agent for the security of himself and his family circle; c) Regarding the beneficiary Martha Arrivillaga, Mr. Carpio’s widow, the State advised that her personal security is provided by a security agent. The State advised that “she has been assigned an agent to provide her with personal security services since July 2, [2010,] who was chosen by Mrs. Arrivillaga from the two agents proposed by the National Civil Police.” According to the State, the beneficiary has indicated that she feels safe and is satisfied with the service provided by the agent. d) Regarding the beneficiary Karen Fischer, the State advised that she had personal security measures provided by five private individuals. The State indicated that “the contract of one of the private agents who provided security was terminated at the beneficiary’s request, and another agent resigned for health reasons.” The State indicated that, in 2010, Mrs. Fischer was informed that “following a thorough analysis and reports, […] it was determined that [the] Ministry was unable to hire the person requested by the beneficiary.” In addition, it indicated that, on different occasions, she had been informed of the impossibility of the State hiring "anyone who was not a member of its institutions, and [that] members of the National Civil Police had been offered; however, the offer ha[d] been rejected.” The State indicated that it was willing “to propose a list of members of the police force who could be considered suitable to ensure Mrs. Fischer’s safety.” e) Regarding the beneficiary Daniela Carpio Fischer, the State advised that her personal security is provided by a private agent. It indicated that it had interviewed Daniela Carpio in November 2009 and, at that time, “she did not report any incident that might suggest a threat. […] She stated that, owing to the high crime rate and insecurity prevailing in the country, she requested that she be assigned two agents as personal security, divided into two groups, to accompany her to all her activities,” and 4