3 * * 5. That with regard to the measures adopted to protect the life and personal integrity of Mrs. Mery Naranjo and her next of kin, the State informed that on the 26, 27, and 28 day of November 2006 the National Police carried out interviews in the city of Medellín, among others, with Mrs. Naranjo, in order to “[s]ee for themselves the security situation reported […] in the follow-up meeting regarding the measures held in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last November 23[, 2006].” The State indicated that, in compliance of the provisional measures, the National Police maintains a permanent security unit 24 hours a day at the home of Mrs. Naranjo, and that the same consists of police cars per shift, and that the beneficiary has a cellular phone provided by the Protection Program of the Department of the Interior and Justice. Likewise, the State indicated that Mrs. Mery Naranjo “[c]ontinues to leave her place of residence for prolonged periods of time, without accepting the police escort established for her security” and that “[s]imilarly, she does not inform her location in order to coordinate with other police units that have territorial competence wherever she is located.” 6. That the representative stated his concern about Mrs. Mery Naranjo’s current situation of risk. Among others, he stated that on November 14 and 15, 2006 two youngsters reported, before the Permanent Unit of Human Rights of the Municipal Office of the Public Prosecutor that “[a] police officer publicly stated that according to the paramilitaries Mrs. MERY NARANJO is a commander of the guerrilla” and that “[t]he paramilitaries […] located in that district, have a picture of Mrs. MERY NARANJO.” In this regard, the representative confirmed the visit made on November 27, 2006 by the Human Rights Director of the National Police to Mrs. Naranjo, during which he verified the version of both youngsters. However, the representative mentioned that he is not aware of any conclusion or report from said visit. Likewise, the representative mentioned that on the day of the visit of the National Police Mrs. Naranjo heard when a police agent in charge of her security stated that “those that defended this member of the guerrilla were leaving.” The representative considers that the aforementioned proves a lack of interest on behalf of the State to protect the beneficiary’s life. 7. That the representative also informed that the protection offered to Mrs. Mery Naranjo and her family has been carried out as mentioned by the State. However, he stated that the threats and harassment against her continues. In the month of January 2007 police officers in charge of the security of the neighborhood where the beneficiary lives issued strong threats against her. As mentioned by the representative, a police lieutenant said to Mrs. Naranjo “[t]hat she wasn’t good for anything else than a couple of bullets to her head.” On April 26, 2007, three days after the murder of Mrs. Judith Adriana Vergara, also a leader of the 13th County, Mrs. Naranjo was contacted by the President of the Community Action of the “20 de Julio” neighborhood who stated that an unidentified youngster went to her house and said: “[D]on’t go reporting anything, because some guys from the Independencias II, told me that they were going to kill all the Presidents of the Community Actions of the 13th County, because they were reporting too many of the violations that occurred in the neighborhood.” The representative informed that in view of the aforementioned, Mrs. Mery Naranjo moved from the neighborhood out of fear of what could happen to her and her next of kin, and therefore she has only seen her children in an intermittent manner after that. 8. That due to this situation, the representative stated that the beneficiary had not been contacted by the State to agree on the mechanism of protection when she leaves the neighborhood. In this sense, he informed that he has insistently asked the State to provide a vehicle with a driver and bodyguards for these movements and that, despite these efforts, the Department of the Interior has stated that this is not economically viable due to the