the State presented its first report on compliance.17 Consequently, the Court considers that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 67 and 68(1) de the American Convention, and Article 69 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, as part of the State’s obligation to inform the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the said Judgment, 18 Argentina must forward, in its report on compliance, precise and detailed information on the safety measures that are eventually adopted in favor of the said persons, including María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Marcos Torres, Valeria Torres, Ivana Torres, Romina Torres, Evelyn Paola Caba, Miguel Ángel Sánchez and Tamara Bolívar. B. Request to expand these provisional measures to Luis Alberto Bolívar 20. In the Order of November 25, 2011 (supra having seen paragraph 1), in response to a request for provisional measures filed by the representatives in favor of Luis Alberto Bolívar, presumed witness in the case of the enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres, the InterAmerican Court indicated that, although the incidents that they had described were extremely grave, because, presumably, in November 2011, members of the First Police Precinct had beaten Mr. Bolívar and electrocuted him with “a cattle prod,” the Court did not have evidence to verify whether his situation was urgent, because it had not received any information on recent threats or danger to him. Consequently, the Court requests that the parties provide information on the possible situation of risk of Mr. Bolívar.19 21. In its brief of April 27, 2012, the State advised that “the national Human Rights Secretariat had indicated that [Mr. Bolívar] had not filed any complaint in the domestic sphere with regard to the supposed ill-treatment that he had suffered from police personnel in November 2010.” The representatives and the Commission did not provide information on Mr. Bolívar’s situation. 22. Thus, given the lack of elements that, prima facie, establish the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency to avoid irreparable damage to Luis Alberto Bolívar, the Court rejects the request filed to expand these provisional measures to include him. C. Request to expand these provisional measures to Guillermo Flores and Alba Rosana Vera González 23. In the Order of the Court of November 21, 2012 (supra having seen paragraph 6), in response to a request filed by the representatives to expand the provisional measures to Guillermo Flores, who presumably has information on what happened to Iván Eladio Torres, the Court considered that the representatives had not provided sufficient elements to verify whether the situation of Mr. Flores was of extreme gravity and urgency, and if his rights to personal integrity and life could be affected irreparably. Therefore the Court considered it pertinent to ask the representatives and the State to provide information on the actual situation of Mr. Flores, 17 Cf. Brief of October 10, 2012, presented by the State in the context of monitoring compliance with the Judgment in the Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina (merits file, tome II, folios 808 to 1398). 18 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Mejía Idrovo Vs. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2012, third considering paragraph. 19 Cf. Matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 25, 2011, forty-fourth considering paragraph. 8