2013.” Moreover, they pointed out that it was not clear what structural measures the State was conducting to recognize the work of human rights defenders, what they consist of and how they effectively contribute to the security and personal integrity of the beneficiary; b. they stated that besides the code blue system (emergency buttons) that had been installed at the offices of the CEDEHM organization and the residence of the beneficiary, no additional device or safety mechanism had been installed; c. as a result of the April 4, 2013 attack on the premises of the CEDEHM, the code blue system (emergency buttons) was activated. However, they did not obtain any response. Municipal public security personnel subsequently arrived at the organization and clarified that they had not received the information due to failures in the system and, as such, they have undergone periodic reviews. As for the security cameras, they mentioned that they have not received information regarding their operation, since, in the preceding month of “February, when the vehicle of one of the members of the CEDEHM was stolen, they were informed that the cameras had not recorded the incident due to the fact that they were not working at the time”; d. to date, they have not received the two radio communication systems with the integrated “panic button” that the State undertook to provide; e. with respect to the escort services to the beneficiary by public security officers, they stated that “[t]hey would appreciate it if the State were to promptly submit all related information to the beneficiary and her representatives,” since the State reported that it had already forwarded the official letters to the local authorities by which it had requested that such service be provided to her; f. the official contact designated for emergencies was Attorney Fausto Javier Tagle, Special Prosecutor for Services to Crime Victims, who had visited the CEDEHM facilities on April 4, 2014 where the attacks occurred, and where the glass had been installed. However, they added that the foregoing prosecutor showed animosity toward the beneficiary, since, during a work meeting regarding the matter of Alvarado Reyes, he made negative comments about her; g. as an annex to the report, they included a log registering the surveillance patrols that public security officers carry out at the CEDEHM facilities, which demonstrates that they showed up on six occasions in the month of May, two in June, and three in July. Thus, based on the log, it appears that less than one visit per week take place; h. “there is no effective method to by which to inform all of the authorities at the three levels of government […] about the decisions of the inter-American system organisms.” As such, they stated that it was necessary for the State to detail which authorities were provided with the information related to this matter, and if the police forces and municipal authorities were included, since the report the State submitted does not clarify who the “relevant authorities” are and if the communications were by official letter; nevertheless, they acknowledged that the Secretariat of Government issued an official letter to the beneficiary recognizing the present measure; and i. the beneficiary has not been informed by the State regarding the progress in the investigations of any of the threats and assaults reported to the local Prosecutor’s Office. On the contrary, they received verbal information from the Special Prosecutor for Services to Crime Victims, in the sense that the events reported were related to “isolated [incidents] of general crime,” although there is no investigation to support these assertions. 13. The Court recalls that in order to determine whether a situation of extreme gravity and urgency exists, in order to avoid irreparable damage, it is possible to assess the set of 5