A.1. Information and observations regarding changes in the protection scheme in favor of the beneficiary 7. In its reports, the State has informed the Court about the restructuring process, insofar as this relates to these provisional measures, which involved the elimination of the Department of Administrative Security (DAS), the agency responsible for implementing the security arrangements for the beneficiary Islena Rey, under the coordination of the Human Rights Office of the former Ministry of the Interior and Justice. Colombia reported, inter alia, that Decree 1030 of 2010 established that the responsibilities of the DAS Protection Program “w[ould] be gradually reduced,” as the different stages of the process to transfer the respective protection schemes were completed. The State explained that it would not leave unprotected any of those beneficiaries who, upon the expiry of the DAS contract, had been assigned a protection scheme by that entity. 8 8. The representatives reiterated their “uncertainty [regarding] the future administration of the protection scheme in favor of the beneficiary Islena Rey.” They noted that, given the imminent expiry of the regulation that extended the functions of the DAS, periodic decrees for their temporary extension were issued, which caused uncertainty about the continuity of the protection scheme. The representatives also argued that there was a lack of certainty regarding the criteria and requirements for assigning escorts to the beneficiary’s protection scheme, supposedly as a result of the transition process. 9. According to information contained in the briefs presented by the parties, in this context a process of consensus was undertaken in which the State suggested, as an initial option for transferring the functions of the DAS, that private operators take over the protection scheme. The representatives raised objections to the suggestion, arguing that this arrangement would imply “the dissolution of the State’s responsibility […] and [its] delegation […] to a third party; the lack of a strict and preventive supervision by the State to facilitate continuous monitoring of the beneficiary; [and would] grant powers to the [o]perator of the scheme that would cause concern because of their effects on the implementation of the measures.” The representatives added that they would “wait to hear […] the second alternative presented by the State […] in relation to the possible creation of a ‘department’ or ‘agency’ […] to assume the task of running the mobile protection schemes.” 10. Subsequently, the State referred to the option of a private operator taking charge of implementation and asserted, inter alia, that the protection system for Mrs. Islena Rey, consisting of a vehicle and personnel, would not be subject to any change. It also explained the reasons why it considers that the changes stemming from the governmental restructuring “do not affect or interfere with the international obligations of the State” and affirmed that “it is not true that the State is delegating its responsibility to a third party” when entrusted with the implementation of physical protection measures. It emphasized that the measures would continue to be approved by the State, and that the private firm would be subject to rules of supervision and monitoring by the State. Furthermore, Colombia reported that “on October 31, 2011, Decree 4065 was issued, which created the National Protection Unit –UNP- for the purpose of articulating, coordinating and executing protection services and thereby unifying the procedures, so that [sic] only one entity will be in charge of assuming this obligation.” It also pointed out that, at the request of the petitioners, the Ministry of the Interior summoned the beneficiary and her representatives 8 Cf. Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of February 22, 2011, Considering paragraph 8. 4