3 continue her studies, and also [that] a safe mechanism [be established] so that she can travel to the establishment.” Furthermore, the representatives indicated that on July 19, 2006, a meeting had been held with representatives of the State, in which the delegate of the Prosecutor’s Office had advised that no progress had been made in the investigation into the facts that occurred on February 14, 2006, and that no charges had been laid against anyone, even though there was a complete list of the members of the Army who had taken part in the facts. Lastly, it was agreed to change the Prosecutor in charge of the investigation. The representatives considered that the most effective protection for the persons at risk was the investigation into the facts and the punishment of those responsible, before entering into discussions with the State about the actual measures of protection. Lastly, it indicated that Mery Naranjo Jiménez and her family continued to be without any judicial protection and with the “unreliable protection they had been granted before the provisional measures were ordered.” 5. The note presented on August 4, 2006, by the Commission, indicating that, based on the information received from the representatives, “it had found no evidence to conclude that the minor [Luisa María Escudero Jiménez] was not in danger.” It also referred to the place of residence of Mery Naranjo Jiménez and the vicinity of her family group, which included other beneficiaries of the measures and her next of kin, and reiterated the “need to provide protection to the place of residence of the beneficiary.” It also indicated that “owing to their specificity, it was fundamental to ensure constant, updated coordination between the State and the beneficiaries in the planning of the measures.” 6. The communication presented by the State on August 11, 2006, in which it informed the Court about the different actions it had adopted to safeguard the life and personal integrity of Mery Naranjo Jiménez and her family, including: (a) Mery Naranjo Jiménez had been provided with “an Avantel means of communication” to use with the Police Commander at the El Corazón Police Station, so that she could be in permanent contact with the National Police, and a three-month extension had been approved for support for temporary relocation, which is paid monthly; (b) Authorization had been given to issue tickets on the route Medellín-BogotáMedellín to the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, Mery Naranjo Jiménez, Alba Mery Naranjo and María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, so that they could attend the meetings to coordinate the measures; (c) The National Police, the entity responsible for providing security, had proposed that a study be conducted as a necessary formality for continuing the protection scheme. The beneficiaries and their representatives had refused this; nevertheless, the National Police had maintained the protection it provided to the residence of Mery Naranjo Jiménez and her family; (d) Regarding María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, the petitioners considered that the presence of the security service at her residence was unnecessary; (e) A meeting to coordinate measures had been held with the beneficiaries of the measures, in compliance with the provisions of the eighth operative paragraph of the Court’s Order of July 5, 2006. It was attended by representatives of various State institutions and by Mery Naranjo Jiménez and María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño. At this meeting, the material measures of protection and the political measures requested by the beneficiaries were reviewed, and