to two meetings in order to discuss and consider the possibility of transferring Mrs. Islena Rey’s protection scheme to a specific private operator, but that the beneficiary did not accept that transfer. 11. In response to the foregoing, the representatives stated that it was not true that the beneficiary had refused to accept the transfer of her scheme but had “ask [ed] the officials to provide information regarding the ‘Temporary Union’ system and on the new regulations concerning the National Protection Unit […] to be able to study the offers. 12. Next, the State referred in greater detail to the aforementioned National Protection Unit and indicated that twelve state institutions are involved in one or several stages of the protection strategy. The State also emphasized that the National Protection Unit would “guarantee that the security unit in charge of the protection program was separate from the body responsible for intelligence and counterintelligence activities.” Furthermore, Colombia referred to the alleged uncertainty in the criteria and requirements for adding an escort to Mrs. Islena Rey’s scheme, and argued that, “given the legal powers assigned, it is not possible for [the National Protection Unit] to directly hire the escort units.” 13. The State then reported that, following a meeting held on May 28, 2012 between the beneficiary and officials of the National Protection Unit, the former had “express[ed] her agreement to have the protection system transferred to a private security firm from July 1, 2012.” In this regard, the representatives emphasized that “Islena Rey had no other alternative [than to] accept this transfer, since according to the National Protection Unit […] it was not possible for her two trusted escorts to be incorporated into this unit [ and that,] if this transfer were not accepted, the beneficiary ran the risk of being left without a protection scheme.” The representatives also submitted to the Court a “Letter of Agreement” signed by the beneficiary Islena Rey Rodríguez and the Coordinator for Monitoring Measures and Human Rights of the National Protection Unit of the Ministry of the Interior, which states that: “the [S]tate shall be directly responsible for the protection provided to persons who find themselves in an exceptional or extreme situation of risk, [that the] [p]rivate [o]perator will only provide any logistical support required for the supervision of the contract, and therefore the protected person and the private operator would not have a direct bearing on the proper functioning of the scheme [and that t]he relationship between the National Protection Unit and the beneficiary continues under the same terms as it has been managed to date and the UNP will be the unit responsible for the optimum functioning of the protection scheme assigned to the beneficiary of the provisional measures.” 14. In its brief of observations of July 13, 2011, the Inter-American Commission appreciated the State’s explanation that the beneficiary’s protection scheme would remain unchanged, despite the transfer of the DAS’ functions, but regretted the lack of clarity in the implementation of the scheme and the prospects for the immediate future. It considered that the State should clarify the situation regarding the private contractors, the period during which they were expected to carry out the functions entrusted by the DAS and the possibilities of creating a State entity for those purposes. The Commission also considered it necessary that “in the context of the mechanism for implementing these measures the representatives [have] access to relevant information.” Subsequently, in its observations of February 14, 2012, the Commission took note of the creation of the National Protection Unit of the Ministry of the Interior, of the extension of the functions of the DAS regarding Mrs. Islena Rey’s protection scheme and of the additional information provided on the contract with the private firm, and called for “a fluid and constant dialogue to be maintained between the parties, in order to ensure that any change is approved by the beneficiary and responds to her protection needs.” 5