5 b) that the records submitted by the State do not amount to effective patrolling, as such protection is aimed more at reducing the high crime rate in the area than at protecting the facilities and as during many working hours there is no police agent in the area; c) that the records submitted by the State from October, 2007 to January, 2008 “lack all legitimacy, [… for the supervision forms […] dated January 01, 03, 04, 06, 09, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 22 of October 2007 were signed by […] the citizen Martín Cúrvelo. [However, the aforementioned citizen,] on May [20], 2007, […] lost his life;” d) that protection was limited to the life and personal integrity of the individuals concerned, but no measure was adopted to protect their freedom of expression. 11. That the Commission pointed out, inter alia, that the State did not provide information regarding the measures for protecting the beneficiaries when they are away from the newspaper premises and stated its concern for the contradictory manner in which such measures were implemented, specifically it observed that “the contradictions the beneficiaries mention regarding the supervision forms produced as evidence are worth worrying about and are set in the wider framework of the allegation that possibly the current provisional measures are not being effectively implemented […].” 12. That the Court finds that the main protection measure implemented by the State was the one regarding the perimeter protection of the newspaper “El Nacional” headquarters. 13. That this Tribunal values the efforts deployed by the State on account of the judicial orders issued in 2004 and 2005 (supra Considering Clause 9). However, the Tribunal considers with the utmost concern the allegations by the representatives that such measures were not duly implemented, for “patrolling was not effective” and furthermore that the records covering from October, 2007 to January, 2008, submitted by the State, are signed by a supervisor who, according to the representatives, would have died, something which the State did not deny. * * * 14. That at the February 26, 2005 oral hearing held before the aforementioned court (supra Considering Clause 9), the State informed about the participation and decision-making power afforded to the beneficiaries. Furthermore, on March 19, 2007 the State proposed a meeting to “hear, assess and process the proposals” the beneficiaries might want to put forward. Subsequently, the State requested the lifting of the current provisional measures (infra Considering Clause 21). 15. That the representatives pointed out that “although it is true that on January 26, 2005 a hearing was held, more than […] two years” have gone by “since such meeting” without there having been held “any other hearing for the purpose of continuing to participate in implementing the measures.”