that Mr. Dencen Andino Alvarado had been sentenced, through a judgment dated February 4, 2010, for the crime of theft and had been incarcerated in the Prison of El Porvenir, located in La Ceiba, in the Department of Atlántida, since February 7, 2010. Thus, a meeting was held with the beneficiary in that detention center for the purpose of coordinating the measures of protection that would be implemented in his favor. According to the agreement, Mr. Andino would have police protection during his incarceration and would be placed in an isolated cell with other persons that were also in situations of risk. Arrangements would be made so that Mr. Andino would be transferred to the Tela Prison, as it was closer to his family, and meetings would be held with him on a monthly basis or “when circumstances warrant[ed] it.” Regarding the attack that Mr. Andino allegedly suffered at the hands of his cellmates on May 2, 2011 (infra Considering clause 10), the State indicated that it had not been informed of that event. However, it stated that on May 25, 2011, a meeting was held with the beneficiary in which he allegedly stated that he was “satisfied with the provisional measures of protection agreed upon with police authorities, as they were being carried out in full.”4 Authorities inspected Mr. Andino's cell and verified that “conditions are optimal with respect to all basic services.” 5 9. Initially, the representatives stated that in a meeting held on December 13, 2008, after analyzing Mr. Dencen Andino’s activities as a street vendor, police officials recommended that he leave the City of Tela, where he resided, “given that the exercise of [that] activity increase[d] the risk of an attack against his life and personal integrity.” Additionally, officials offered periodic patrols at his home and provided telephone numbers that he could call in case of emergency. According to the representatives, Mr. Andino had indicated that he was not satisfied with this measure because he would have to cover transportation costs even though his income is low and because it would mean leaving his mother, wife, and daughter to fend for themselves. The representatives indicated that in accordance with the Law for the Protection of Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings passed in 2007 in Honduras, measures of protection “shall not generate any costs to their beneficiaries.”6 The representatives submitted a copy of the Law to the Tribunal. Subsequently, the representatives reported that Mr. Andino was renting an apartment in another area using his own resources, but that he did not have personal security nor patrols, and that police authorities occasionally arrived at his place of work in order to ask how he was doing. Also, the representatives stated that police protection was not being carried out as agreed, given that on some occasions, the established schedules were not kept, which left Mr. Andino without protection at certain times. However, the representatives indicated that later Mr. Andino had stated that “the service ha[d] 4 The State also indicated that Mr. Andino had stated that “he was in an isolated cell for his own security and that all of his rights and guarantees were respected there. [His incarceration in that cell] did not mean that, with his isolation, his fundamental rights were being undermined. Instead, his isolation was intended to safeguard his life and physical integrity by avoiding his exposure to the rest of the prison population.” 5 Also, Mr. Andino was provided with telephone numbers which he could call for immediate attention in case of emergencies, and was told that arrangements would be made “before the appropriate police authorities so that they would receive precise instructions on the case and compliance with the provisional measures w[ould] continue.” 6 The representatives stated that this Law also states that protection entails “socio-economic, psychological, and medical support, as well as other types of actions directed toward protecting needs previously analyzed.” 4