9 iv. the communication devices allocated under the protection plan are not working properly; v. regarding the alleged failure of Ms. Rey to comply with her duties, particularly, the transfer of her daughter in such vehicle, “[t]he protection plan cannot be understood as an additional mechanism of aggression and restriction to those who are under the cover thereof.” [T]he Colombian authorities should […] create the necessary conditions to make this service compatible with the habitual activities of the above-mentioned persons rather than subject them to further restrictions;” vi. the Government uses derogatory and defamatory language to refer to Ms. Rey, particularly to her alleged “discredit campaign” against the DAS and her definition as an “enemy of the State,” which is far from being true and adds to the situation of risk and latent threats she is subject to. Ms. Rey is not carrying out a campaign to discredit the DAS or the State; rather, she’s demanding the compliance with the protection measures the State must afford thereto; vii. regarding the criminal investigation started against Ms. Rey as a result of the application filed by her former escort, Luis Adolfo Cárdenas-Barrera, on June 2, 2004 Ms. Rey made an appearance before the Office of the Public Prosecutor, during which she was questioned about the reason why she had been afforded protection measures and who had ordered such measures, as well as about her activities as a defender of human rights and who had awarded her such title or position. Such issues seem to have no bearing whatsoever on an investigation into alleged embezzlement. In this regard, her representatives pointed out that they “seriously fear that such investigation turns into judicial persecutions which distract the attention off the safety situation of Islena Rey, as it has happened with other human rights activists in Colombia.” Furthermore, Ms. Rey argued that “it is not true that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic did not know where to find her in order to serve notice of the decision upon her […];” viii. Islena Rey was summoned to appear at a settlement hearing set for February 3, 2006, within the framework of another investigation started against her as a result of the application filed by Miguel Hernando Lozano-Alvarado, who was also a former escort of Ms. Rey. The representatives pointed out that “[t]his type of facts become acts of harassment and persecution against her, which lead her either to be confronted with the institution which is responsible for her protection or waive such protection measures so as to avoid further problems;” and ix. they do not see the bearing of the statements contained in the reports of the State concerning the Action Plan known as “Visión sin Límites” on the compliance with the protection measures afforded to Ms. Rey. b) Regarding the investigation into the facts denounced which gave rise to the adoption of these measures in order to identify those responsible for such acts and, where appropriate, punish them, that: