18 expressed concern over the facts of violence reported by the representatives with regard to Ms. María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño (infra Considering 65e). 61. The Court recalls that in its order of January 31, 2008, it indicated to the State that it must respect the decision of the beneficiary to keep her residence confidential and that the implementation of the protective measures to her benefit must be coordinated with the representatives ahead of time.27 In this regard, it observes with satisfaction that the State agreed on certain measures to her benefit and that they are being implemented. Likewise, it views positively the meetings held between the State and the beneficiaries to follow up on the protective measures implemented (supra Considering 20 to 22). 62. Now, the Court notes that as with the measures implemented to the benefit of Ms. Mery Naranjo and her relatives, the representatives have expressed repeatedly their complaints over the official designated as the police contact for Ms. María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, as well as over what they consider to have been a unilateral suspension of the measure of transportation aid granted to the beneficiary. The Court observes that the State reported that in June of 2010 that this beneficiary had been offered a change in her police contact, yet does not have information indicating that the aforementioned contact corresponding to “Plan Godfather” was effectively changed. Regarding this, the Court reiterates that the State must provide for the beneficiaries’ participation in the planning of these measures in such a way that they will be in agreement with the measures adopted to their benefit and can be implemented in a diligent and effective manner. 63. Therefore, the Tribunal deems it necessary for the State to provide detailed and complete information in its next report on the measures that have been taken or are being taken toward the effective implementation of protective measures to the benefit of beneficiary María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño. 64. In addition, the Court takes note of the information provided by the State to the effect that it had offered temporary relocation aid to the beneficiary, but that it had not received a response from the beneficiary on this. Likewise, it observes that as of the date of this order, the corresponding comments from the representatives have not been submitted to the Tribunal, for which reason the Court asks the representatives to submit the corresponding information to the Tribunal in such a way that it can adequately evaluate the implementation of the protective measures to the benefit of beneficiary Mosquera Londoño with regard to her specific situation. 3. On the situation of risk faced by the beneficiaries 65. The representatives indicated that the persecution and harassment suffered by beneficiaries Mery Naranjo and María del Socorro Mosquera since the year 2002 have threatened the lives and personal integrity of the beneficiaries, affecting their physical and psychological health and the quality of their lives. In particular, they reported on the following situations that have placed the beneficiaries at risk: a. In June of 2008, beneficiary Mery Naranjo was injured by members of the police of the Immediate Response Center (CAI in its Spanish acronym) of the San Michel neighborhood. b. Likewise, they indicated that the niece of Ms. Mery Naranjo, Francisco Javier Escudero, had been subjected to threats "consisting in damaging his professional profile." These threats were carried out in August of 2008 and an investigation was launched in Court 187 of the Military Court of Medellin. 27 Cf. Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Order of the Court of January 31, 2008, supra footnote 14, Considering 17.