3 f) Finally, the Commission referred to information presented by the State before the Commission on September 30, 20093 regarding the present matter. 3. The Commission’s arguments upon which it bases its request for provisional measures, namely: a) The situation of extreme gravity and urgency is verified in this case because, despite the precautionary measures granted by the Commission, the beneficiaries continue to be the target of harassment, intimidation, and monitoring, all of which have recently intensified. This, together with the existence of intelligence groups specialized in monitoring human rights organizations and the lack of an effective response to clarifying allegations against the beneficiaries, demonstrates the situation of vulnerability, helplessness, and uncertainty in which the beneficiaries find themselves. Faced with the potential for violations of their rights to life and humane treatment, their situation is one of serious risk of imminent, irreparable harm. The adversarial context in which human rights defenders must work is further compounded by their historical lack of protection in Colombia, and in particular by the statements of State officials set on discrediting their work; and, b) The damaging effect of the alleged acts goes beyond the direct victims in this case, diminishing the likelihood that other human rights defenders will continue to engage in their work and placing all such workers in a situation of extreme vulnerability and risk. 4. Inter-American Commission’s motion that the Court obligate the State to take the following measures: a) to adopt, without delay, all the measures that may be necessary to guarantee the lives and right to humane treatment of the beneficiaries; b) to take all actions that may be necessary to guarantee that the CCJ members are able to continue conducting their work in the promotion and defense of human rights in Colombia; c) to consult with the beneficiaries as to the most appropriate means to implement the protective measures so as to ensure their effectiveness and relevance; d) to carry out an investigation into the underlying facts prompting the request for provisional measures as a preventive measure against the recurrence of new threats to the lives and wellbeing of the beneficiaries; e) to report on the steps taken with regard for the aforementioned prescriptions. The Commission also requested that the design and implementation of the protective measures be carried out by the State in cooperation with the beneficiaries in the following ways: i) the persons assigned to provide protection for the beneficiaries must not have any link whatsoever to the DAS; ii) the protective measures must provide for the security of the individuals as well as that of their dwellings in accordance with their needs and preferences; and, iii) the beneficiaries should be provided with appropriate means of communication to remain in contact with each other and with security personnel. 5. The communication of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter the “Secretariat”) of November 9, 2009 whereby, pursuant to instructions from the President of the Court, 3 In the Request for Provisional Measures, the Commission indicated that this information was presented by the State on September 30, 2009 as “observations” on the petitioner’s brief requesting provisional measures. However, the State refers to this same communication with the date of September 29, 2009.