improved.” Even so, the representatives expressed their concern over “possible changes in police agents announced” by the State, indicating that the criteria used for that purpose must be clarified and conveyed to the beneficiary beforehand. Furthermore, the representatives stated that Mr. Andino had not been given a bulletproof vest at times when he had been in need of one. 10. Furthermore, the representatives reported that on January 13, 2009, Mr. Andino was detained by police due to an alleged theft. Mr. Andino was freed on the following day with measures in lieu of detention. At that point, the representatives were unaware of the factual and legal basis for Mr. Andino’s arrest. Afterward, the representatives informed the Tribunal that they would not comment on the claims filed against Mr. Andino (supra Considering clause 8), as “none of them relate[d] to the events that gave rise” to these provisional measures. On March 5, 2010, the representatives reported that on February 4, 2010, Mr. Andino had been sentenced for the crime of theft, and that he was incarcerated in the Prison of El Porvenir. They indicated that the provisional measures ordered in his favor should continue despite this situation, those of which made him even more vulnerable. The representatives expressed their dissatisfaction with the conditions in which Mr. Andino was deprived of liberty.7 They also highlighted that even though a request had been made for Mr. Andino’s transfer to the Tela Prison, which is closer to his family, authorities had not yet issued a decision thereon. The representatives also indicated, according to more recent information, that Mr. Andino had been threatened by four of his cellmates on May 4, 2011. Two days before, he had been involved in a confrontation in which a detainee attacked one of his cellmates, and “both had to take certain measures for their own security.” The representatives consider Mr. Andino’s life to be in danger; consequently, they requested that the Court order the State to transfer him to the Tela Prison, which would also guarantee contact with his family. Regarding the information submitted by the State on the meeting held with the beneficiary on May 25, 2011 (supra Considering clause 8), the representatives indicated that one of them had met with Mr. Andino on June 14, 2011, and that the Director of the Prison where the beneficiary is incarcerated had been present. Mr. Andino had manifested at that time that he was satisfied with the implementation of the measures. However, when the Director left, Mr. Andino stated that he “was afraid that he would suffer greater reprisals if he denounced the threats that he received.” Moreover, Mr. Andino stated in a letter written by him that “several policemen” in that place had threatened him, stating that “they were going to find out how much his head was worth,” given “his status as a protected witness in the case of Jeanet[t]e Kawas,” and that this places him at risk because “other prisoners can find out and cause him harm.” Thus, the representatives reiterated their request that Mr. Andino be transferred to another prison. 11. The representatives also referred to other specific events that occurred after the Court ordered these provisional measures (supra Having Seen clause 1) and that, in their opinion, put Mr. Andino at risk: a) on December 15, 2008, he received a message from an attorney representing two persons involved in the events that occurred to Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández and the obstruction of their investigation, requesting a meeting with him. Mr. Dencen Andino was afraid and did not want to attend this meeting. 7 They stated that he shared an isolated cell with six other persons, that they only received natural light for 5 minutes every eight or fifteen days, and that they received 10 pounds of rice, beans, and butter once a week so that they could prepare their own meals. 5