CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 Colombia. She notes that between 1996 and 2003 there were 69 attacks against human rights defenders who were working on land claims in the State of Zulia and that many human rights defenders were murdered. Joe Castillo’s activities therefore put him at risk. The State party was aware of this situation but took no action whatsoever to protect him or to minimize the risk. On 20 February 2001, Joe Castillo himself attended a meeting with State officials for the purpose of making them aware of the danger and was one of the parties involved in submitting the request for precautionary measures of protection to the Inter-American Commission. The request for precautionary measures was granted and brought to the attention of the State. Several of the intended beneficiaries of those measures were killed. Therefore, the State party cannot claim that the victims had not made a public complaint or any report to the State authorities regarding the risks they faced. 7.3 The author reiterates her arguments regarding the lack of due diligence on the part of the State, both in preventing the attack and in its investigation of the case. She emphasizes, in particular, that during the investigation of the attack, the Agency for Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigations obtained statements from two individuals who claimed that Joe Castillo was on a paramilitary hit list and that the mayor was aware of the activities of the paramilitary groups and colluded with them. It is unacceptable that the State has not taken any judicial steps to shed light on the participation or acquiescence of local authorities in the attack against the Castillo Moreno family. 7.4 The author also contests the State’s contention that she was notified of the decision to close the case and maintains that she was unaware of its discontinuance until she visited the prosecutor’s office on 28 November 2006. In addition, she was unable to view the case file until 2007, and the copy she received did not include the declaration of discontinuance. Furthermore, the copy of the records provided to her lawyers was not certified. These obstacles prevented them from pursuing further remedies. 7.5 The author rebuts the State party’s arguments regarding the effectiveness of protective measures for her and her son. She claims that, despite the fact that protection measures were granted by the Third Court of First Instance of the State of Miranda, such measures were never implemented, she was not notified of them and she was not afforded any protection beyond the court ruling. The court requested that the police superintendent in Miranda implement the measures on 11 December 2003, 29 July 2005, 26 September 2006 and 15 May 2007, but no steps were ever taken to protect their lives and personal integrity. 7.6 With regard to her failure to appear on 21 January 2016, the author notes that she was not properly notified of the summons: she was informed indirectly and at short notice despite the fact that the authorities could have contacted her through the Vicariate or through her lawyers, whose contact details appear in the original communication to the Committee, a copy of which was sent to the State. She considers that neither she nor her son received protection from the State at the time that such protection was most urgently needed. As there is currently no risk to her life, she is limiting her request to obtaining justice, full redress and the implementation of measures of non-repetition. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 In connection with the submission of the matter to another procedure of international investigation or settlement, the Committee notes the State party’s contention that the case should be declared inadmissible because the same matter was submitted first to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights and then to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Court issued a judgment on the matter on 12 November 2012. 8.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which, under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, a communication shall be declared inadmissible if it is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It further 9