Action Team –ECAP-’s own beneficiaries and the guardians of the Centre for Human Rights Legal Action –CALDH-“ (supra Having Seen 3) 11. That in relation to the investigation of the facts that originated the request for provisional measures, the State informed: a) about the denouncement presented by Bonifacio Osorio Ixtapá, it indicated that the case had been identified with the number 248/2006/646, in charge of the Crimes against Human Rights Activists Unit in the Government Attorney's Office Human Rights Section. That the Crime Investigation Department of the Public Prosecutor’s Office made an investigation in the city council of Rabinal, Baja Verapaz, but since it was known that the claimant stopped working for ECAP; they shelved the file; b) regarding the denouncement presented by Marta Olinda Xocop Morales, it stated that the file is identified with the number MP001/2007/10789 in charge of the same state's attorney unit, for the crime of threats and intimidation. It added that testimonial statements of facts were collected, and that “a photograph album of the arrested people was shown to Mrs. Xocop without any result,” among other proceedings, and the case was still being investigated (supra Having Seen 3). 12. That in regards to the passing of the provisional measures, the guardians informed that the mechanisms of execution accorded with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and COPREDEH were the protection through a permanent post in the head office of ECAP, which was stopped without any previous warn, and only perimeter security was being done. They added that, in the offices of ECAP in Rabinal, this permanent post has remained, but they are not content with the personnel assigned because they do not have a police uniform and it is difficult to identify them. However, they considered that given the fact that they had not received any new threats or intimidation, it was possible to rescind from the measures. In its brief from November 11, 2008, they reiterated that “up to the moment, the extreme seriousness and urgency to avoid irreparable damages that led to the passing of these measures for every single beneficiary do not persist […] however, the impunity in which the incidents of threats and intimidation received by the members of the organization do persist […] because up to this moment new serious incidents of threats or intimidation have not occurred against the ECAP team […] it is possible to rescind from the measures” (supra Having Seen 4). 13. That the guardians referred to the investigation of the incidents indicating that “the information given by the State until the moment does not represent an important progress […] beyond the initial and necessary processes regarding the collection of the statements of the facts by the threaten people, robot pictures and the revision of [the] photograph album […].” They asked to remind the State about its obligation to investigate the incidents that caused the request for provisional measures in favor of the members of ECAP, “because the more impunity given to the authors of this type of incidents, the more possibilities of them being repeated.” 14. That through the briefs from December 29, 2008 and April 22, 2009, the Commission considered in its observations that the information presented by the State and by the guardians “is not clear regarding the measures that are currently in force, this is, how and where they are done, and; on the other hand, it considered that it would be important that the Court be provided with more information to understand if there are more members of the organization in risk, in that case, which ones” (supra Having Seen 5). Finally, it said that the State does not reveal relevant advances in regards to the determination of the responsible people that caused these provisional measures. 15. That according to the information presented by the guardians, this Court issues that the planning of the provisional measures has been done by common consent for both sides, although its passing has not been done completely