4 12. The comments submitted by the Inter-American Commission on July 29, 2005, whereby the Commission stated, inter alia, that: a) it acknowledged that Marta Colomina is currently under the protection of a State security agency; however, such protection is deficient, “given that the specific form of protection has not been agreed upon with the beneficiaries and their representative.” Furthermore, the State is not in compliance with its duty to provide protection to Liliana Vásquez; b) the mechanism for compliance with provisional measures “may only be implemented [..] in consultation with the beneficiaries and their representatives.” Accordingly, it insisted on the need for the State to make its best efforts to hold a meeting with the beneficiaries for planning purposes, and c) in the proceeding for provisional measures, it will not analyze the conclusions arrived at by the State regarding the investigation of the facts that led to the measures, “which pertains to the examination of the merits of the matter, to be dealt with at the appropriate stage of case No. 519/03, which is currently pending before the Commission.” 13. The September 9, 2005 report by the State and the appendixes thereto, wherein the State noted, inter alia, that: a) the crime perpetrated against the beneficiaries is a hard one to solve, because of the crowd that was involved in it and because the evidence left at the scene was altered, as evidence was manipulated and gathered by nonexpert persons disregarding the applicable statutory requirements. The case of Ms. Colomina was discontinued without prejudice because the investigation stage did not produce sufficient evidence to prosecute; b) “[it w]ill continue to investigate until the facts are fully cleared up,” in spite of the aforementioned difficulties. Furthermore, it invited Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez to provide the Office of the Attorney General with any information that would be of value in furthering such investigation; c) the beneficiaries of the measures did not attend the hearings called by the investigating courts, which are in charge of implementing the protection measures. “[T]he failure to appear […] inevitably leads to the assumption that they have already given up on the enforcement of such measures or that the danger leading to such measures is now over;” d) the beneficiaries’ representatives have misstated the facts by claiming that “the beneficiaries never provided a statement” to State authorities. A police Commission was sent to the “Televen” television channel’s building, where it interviewed Liliana Velásquez and Marta Colomina, as well as several witnesses, and e) in this case there are no multiple, consistent indications to assume that a serious threat exists against Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.