communication equipment failures and irregularities in the police patrolling, for which reason they considered such measures to be ineffective. 6. The Inter-American Commission, among other considerations, emphasized that "the failures reported [...] were related to the implementation of measures that are important to guarantee the protection of the beneficiaries, specially before a situation of risk [and] that the State has not indicated when [some] of the measures requested since 2009 would be implemented, despite having repeatedly sustained that it had the mechanisms to proceed with said implementation". b) Incidents against the beneficiaries 7. In relation to the alleged acts of threats or violence giving rise to the adoption of these provisional measures as well as new complaints filed by the representatives, Mexico forwarded information on the investigative proceedings and pointed out that the authorities had made inquiries regarding the denounced facts, they had obtained the statements of the aggrieved parties and witnesses and also, they had conducted expert examinations, among other measures. Moreover, it pointed out that “in order to comply with the State’s international obligations on human rights and, in particular, to improve its judicial institutions to address, in a better way, the recommendations made in the report received on October 25, 2010, it requested the collaboration of Consejo General de la Abogacia Española [General Council of Spanish Bar Association] for the design of the project called ‘protocol for the investigation of threats or attacks against human rights defenders in the State of Guerrero’, the resolution of which is expected on May 31, 2011. 8. The representatives expressed their concern about some of the steps taken in the investigation into the facts that gave rise to the provisional measures and indicated that, despite the “pre-trial investigative procedures related to the facts for which the beneficiaries of these measures were injured[, these measures] do not show positive results”. In addition, they informed on alleged new acts of threats or violence occurring in the months of June, August and November 2009; January, March, April, July, August and November 2010 and March 2011. In this respect, they indicated that “the number of acts of threats and harassment committed against the beneficiaries had increased since the granting of these provisional measures” and show “the continuance of a situation of high risk for [the] beneficiaries and the resulting need for a prompt and effective implementation of the measures ordered by the Tribunal”. 9. The Commission took note of the information regarding the increase of threats and acts of harassment committed against the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, despite their enforcement. To this end, it pointed out that the situation of risk of the beneficiaries is not being adequately addressed. Furthermore, it sustained that "due to the information on the lack of implementation of the protective measures in view of the frequent acts of threats committed against the beneficiaries of these measures, it is essential and urgent to adopt specific measures to effectively ensure a proper protection of the beneficiaries”. 10. Regarding the information provided by the parties, the Tribunal notes that since the adoption of these provisional measures by means of its Order of April 30, 2009, numerous acts of harassment, threats and violence against certain beneficiaries have 3