Office, “the beneficiary had not yet been formally included in the program.” They also stated the Mr. Andino had still not changed his domicile, but that they had requested a meeting with State agents in order to come to an agreement as to the terms of his move. They also indicated that Mr. Andino had expressed his intent to move to San Lorenzo, Valle, and to start a business selling food. Thus, the representatives requested that instead of the additional amount offered by the State, Mr. Andino receive “economic assistance through the purchase of the elements necessary in order to do so, as well as the payment of the business’s rent during its first three months.” The representatives indicated that they did not approve of the State’s offer of an additional amount in favor of Mr. Andino for the purpose of starting a business, indicating that the monies should be provided directly to Mr. Andino, who would be responsible for its use in a manner that is appropriate given its purpose.” Subsequently, the representatives also stated that they “they were also of the opinion that [Mr. Andino’s] definitive inclusion [in the witness protection program] should be postponed until his legal situation [was] resolved.” 18. The Inter-American Commission indicated that it considered “important that the State explain why [Mr. Andino’s] transfer would obstruct proceedings and indicate whether mechanisms existed so that those proceedings could continue in the place where Mr. Andino was to establish his new residence.” 19. The Tribunal notes that, as a measure of protection, the State provided Mr. Andino with economic aid so that he could change his place of residence. According to the information provided by the representatives and the State, this assistance came from the Witness Protection Program of the Prosecutor’s Office. Afterward, the State was not able to provide the additional aid it had offered, partly because the criminal proceedings against Mr. Andino had not concluded. However, the information provided does not demonstrate that Mr. Andino has been effectively incorporated to that program, as his representatives have stated. Therefore, the Court requests the State to include detailed information in that regard in its next report, and that it indicate, if applicable, what Mr. Andino’s protection provided though that program consists of, the entity in charge of providing his protection, and the entity in charge of supervising its effective implementation. C. Planning and implementation of the measures of protection with the participation of the beneficiary or his representatives (Operative Paragraph three of the Order of November 29, 2008) 20. In their briefs, the State and the representatives referred to various meetings held with the beneficiary and his representatives in order to come to an agreement on and supervise the measures of protection implemented in his favor. These meetings occurred on December 13, 2008, January 16, May 19, September 12, and October 31, 2009, February 7, 2010, and May 25, 2011. 21. The Commission indicated that there “exist[ed] a certain level of dialogue in the process of designing and implementing the measures of protection.” 22. The Tribunal positively assesses the contact between the State, Mr. Dencen Andino Alvarado, and his representatives for the purpose of agreeing upon and implementing the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in Mr. Andino’s favor. The Court urges the parties to continue maintaining channels of communication open that are appropriate for this end. 9