6 that the ICJP contributed information about “different defamatory mails received against the organization and its members,” and that “in recent days,” “graffiti in the center of Bogotá, reading ‘NGO Justice and Peace = Death to the Marxist Priest,’ ‘National Action AR – NR,’ and ‘NGO Justice and Peace Terrorists,’ was visible”; and, c) On the third point, the ICJP provided information that “the intelligence offensives, as well as these attempted attacks make the continuity of human rights work next to impossible for the victims of such attacks throughout the country and especially in the Bajo Atrato region,” and that “the situation in the field is more complex ‘owing to pressure from paramilitary groups.’” 7. The communication of May 6, 2010 whereby, pursuant to the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat requested that the State present its relevant observations on the Commission’s written submission (supra Having Seen 6). 8. The communication from the Secretariat of May 24, 2010 whereby, according to the President’s instructions, the Inter-American Commission was asked to indicate the names of the members of the ICJP that it considered to be in need of protection in the form of provisional measures and to indicate the situation of extreme gravity, urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable harm in which each one of the members were found. Likewise, by way of this communication, the State was informed that once the Commission responded with the information solicited by the Court, the State would be granted an opportunity in which to present its observations on the request for provisional measures, on the “new information” submitted, as well as on the information requested by the Court (supra Having Seen 1, 6). 9. The communication of May 25, 2010 whereby the State moved that the request for provisional measures submitted by the Inter-American Commission be rejected. Particularly, the State indicated that: a) With respect to the alleged intelligence activities against the ICJP and its members, the State said that “it has never, as a matter of government policy, undertaken illegal intelligence activities against individuals or opposition groups,” and that “the alleged illegal intelligence activities committed by some members of the DAS have not been at any point in time the product or consequence of accusations made on the part of the High Government, given that this government has been a steadfast guarantor of the work of [h]uman [r]ights [o]rganizations.” The State elucidated that the alleged illegal intelligence activities “reflect[ed] certain irregularities that appeared in that particular period,” that “various High Government officials have also been victims of these illegal activities,” and that “presently there [...] are guarantees that they will not happen again […] against human rights defenders in Colombia.” In addition, the State made reference to the pronouncements made by “the High Government” in which it “fervently reject[ed] these sorts of practices and hope[d] […] to clarify these alleged criminal acts so as to determine the responsibility of the DAS officials involved [...].” On that matter, the State indicated that “it was the same National Government that promoted the legislative initiative of issuing an Intelligence Law.” The State also referred to the ongoing investigations into the aforementioned acts. In relation to the immigration records alluded to by the Commission, the State noted that “[the investigations] [did] not constitute