4 Caballero Delgado’s forced disappearance, and not from her activities as a trade unionist; (ii) the beneficiary must give her express consent to participate in this program so that the risk assessment can be carried out; (iii) the Witness Protection Program includes, inter alia, such protective measures as a change of domicile or a relocation away from the danger zone, and (iv) the beneficiary’s refusal to participate in the Witness Protection Program must be interpreted by the Court as Mrs. Parra’s rejection of protection and, consequently, in keeping with the criteria established by the Court in its previous Order concerning Mr. Arias Alturo, the current provisional measures must be lifted. Despite the foregoing, the State indicated that “in the event that new threats against the beneficiary materialize, [it will provide her with] the institutional support of the National Police for security measures.” Subsequently, Colombia advised that the Ministry of Justice and the Interior had asked the National Police to “make an assessment of the level of risk and degree of threat that examined the information that the beneficiary [...] had provided the State on her participation in the criminal proceedings,” without this implying that the Ministry of Justice was competent to provide protection to Mrs. Parra. 10. Regarding developments in the criminal investigations into the forced disappearance of Mr. Caballero Delgado and Mrs. Santana, the State indicated that the Prosecutor General’s Office had taken several measures, including surveys, exhumations, taking statements, and the identification of persons involved in the case, despite which no positive results had been obtained in locating the remains of the two victims. Regarding the investigation into the threats against the beneficiary, the State reported that “although the origin of the threats had not been determined, [it] has taken pertinent measures to clarify the reported facts.” The measures included a report by the Technical Investigation Unit dated March 30, 2010, in which it noted that “Mrs. […] Parra stated that a threatening telephone message had been left for her at her workplace”; consequently, in June 2010, it requested a record of the telephone calls made to and from her workplace. 11. The representatives indicated that the State “had complied with the pertinent measures of protection that provide the beneficiary’s current security system.” They indicated that, after several years and some logistic problems in the implementation of the protection system, Mrs. Parra had grown accustomed to living with the system, which “has always been the responsibility of the DAS, at her demand and insistence,” so that she wished to continue under this protection system. They stated that, despite the existence of these measures of protection, the State had not complied with the obligation to “expedite the internal investigations into the threats and harassment [suffered by the beneficiary],” specifically: (a) harassment by a police agent when the beneficiary’s father died; (b) being followed by members of the National Police on motorcycles; (c) the intervention of her telephone line, and (d) the death threats after she testified in the domestic criminal proceedings on November 11, 2009. They added that the beneficiary “does not feel safe” since she does not know the source of the danger and threats. 12. Regarding the risk assessments, they reiterated the possible failings in the assessment made on April 24, 2009, including the fact that it did not take into account that the risk arose from her actions in promoting the criminal investigations carried out in the domestic sphere, but rather only considered her condition as a trade unionist. Regarding the preparation of a new risk assessment, they indicated that it was illogical that Mrs. Parra could agree to participate in the new Witness Protection Program, without previously receiving information on the risk assessment,