among other things, in a decrease in the activities carried out by these defenders,” without specifying their activities as human rights defenders. 14. For its part, in its observations to the petition filed by the Commission, the State pointed out that it has implemented precautionary measures to protect the life and integrity of Margarita Martínez Martínez, Adolfo Guzmán Ordaz, and the children Ada Saraí Martínez Martínez and Eduardo Abel León Martínez. In this regard, it noted that “it does not share the [Commission’s] view that the beneficiaries are experiencing a higher level of gravity, due to the alleged threats, because they are protected by security guards.” It added that the State “has carried out actions aimed at reducing the level of gravity and urgency adduced by the Commission, through the investigations it has undertaken, and also through the protection measures granted to the beneficiaries.” Finally, it emphasized the fact that when the petitioners were asked “whether they had received threats after October 20 of this year, [their] answer was no.” 2) Regarding the implementation of the protection measures 15. In its request, the Commission noted that “although the State has provided security agents, their presence has not been effective, as evidenced by the continuous and recent death threats” and stalking experienced by Mrs. Martínez Martínez and members of her family. In this regard, it referred to the various incidents mentioned previously that took place in 2011 during the time that the precautionary measures were in effect (supra Having Seen para. 4). Moreover, it described the protection arrangements provided, noting that the representatives had pointed out a number of failings in the measures granted, in particular, they reported that on October 17, 2011, one of the designated guards had resigned, without having been replaced by another guard (supra Having seen para. 4.j). It also emphasized that, despite the fact that the petitioners have argued that the local authorities are the source of the risk, the State has not responded by arranging for protection to be provided by the Federal Police. Finally, it indicated that the State has made no reference to the special measures of protection that would be required for the children (supra Having seen paras. 5.b and 15). 16. For its part, the State argued that it has provided various protection arrangements, including the allocation of eight bodyguards of the Secretariat for Citizen Security and Protection of the state of Chiapas, given that raid of the petitioners’ home was carried out by public officials of the Attorney General’s Office for Justice of the state of Chiapas and in consideration that the petitioners have a justified fear of retaliation. As to the bodyguard that had resigned, according to the petitioners, the State noted that a substitute was appointed on November 15, 2011. It also confirmed that a close circuit monitoring device was installed in the petitioners’ home. 17. Furthermore, the State reported that on December 1, 2011, a follow-up meeting took place concerning the implementation of the precautionary measures, and on that occasion the State reiterated “its willingness to continue with the implementation of precautionary measures ordered by the Commission in this matter.” In this regard, it described the matters discussed, the offers made and the adoption of other measures (supra Having seen paras. 9 and 10). 3) Regarding the investigations 18. The Commission argued that no progress has been made regarding the investigation of the events that led to the filing of a request for provisional measures. In this regard, it stated that “the information indicates that the investigations are in the preliminary stages” 13