4 * * 9. Regarding the implementation of the provisional measures ordered by the Court, the State sustained that several human and logistics resources were made available to the beneficiaries, including “12 (twelve) police officers (to protect Mr. Luis Alberto Ramirez Hinostroza, his wife and daughters), 4 (four) police officers (to protect the defense counsels of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramirez Hinostroza), weapons and ammunition, 7 (seven) bulletproof vests and a police car.” The Security Department of Public Officials and Personalities of the State’s Security Division of the Peruvian National Police [Departamento de Seguridad de Funcionarios Públicos y Personalidades de la División de Seguridad del Estado] in Huancayo has provided protection and personal security services, in an immediate and permanent manner, for 24 hours a day, to Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza and his family. Likewise, it has taken security and protective measures in favor of the counsels, Raúl Ángel Ramos De la Torre, who "temporarily did without the service" and César Manuel Saldaña Ramírez. Moreover, during his detention, Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza was placed in the pavilion of elderly people and people with health problems and "within said pavilion, the inmate [was] in a private room [...] separated from the prison population and with the corresponding security.” Finally, Peru expressed "the discontent, anger and questioning of the hostile and unlawful conducts adopted by Mr. […] Ramirez Hinostroza with the police officers in charge of his protection and personal security who, notwithstanding having complied with what was ordered by the competent authorities and the Court […], are attacked by the beneficiary with no any reason at all.” 10. The representatives pointed out that the statement made by the State in relation to the protection provided by the police authorities to Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza “is not true”, as it springs from the Verification and Seizure Record, of September 23, 2008 of the Public Prosecutor’s Office- Crime Prevention Division of Huancayo, and the Visit Record, of that same date, of the Public Defender Office of Junin- Huancayo, which evidences the presence of one police officer, where there should have been four. They further indicated that the information about the supply of bulletproof vests is “false and tendentious.” They mentioned that Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza was accompanied by one member of the security forces in all the attacks carried out against him. Furthermore, they considered it was necessary to “remind the Peruvian State of the seriousness of the compliance with the police protection [according to the provisional measures] in order to avoid irreparable damage.” 11. The Commission “valu[ed] the information forwarded by the State in relation to the security and protective measures provided to Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza, his family and his defense counsels.” It considered that it is necessary, “taking into account the recent subpoena [served on Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza] to render a statement about ‘crimes against humanity” before the Second Criminal Chamber of Lima", for the State to present detailed information on the protective measures in favor of Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza, “explaining the mechanisms of implementation and frequency.” 12. From the information forwarded by the parties, the Tribunal notes that there are wide discrepancies in the way these provisional measures are being implemented, as to the number of appointed police officers, protection material delivered to the beneficiaries and, specially, the conduct of Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza. 13. The Court values the measures adopted by the State to protect the life and integrity of the beneficiaries as to the provision of personal protection. From the information presented by the parties, it spring that the State has offered several police