7 8. That this Court4 has already made clear that it is the State’s duty to supply sufficient information on the measures adopted in the instant case and that the reports submitted by Guatemala, particularly the May 8, 2001 report (supra, paragraphs 9 and 11 under Having Seen), do not provide sufficient information to allow the Court to draw any conclusions as to the actual circumstances of the beneficiaries of the measures ordered. This creates a situation of uncertainty that is incompatible with the preventive and protective nature of provisional measures. The Court must therefore receive fuller information to determine whether the State is complying with the Court’s orders.5 9. That the Commission’s comments describe a situation wherein the safety and integrity of the beneficiaries are in peril, because the former patrolmen are still at large. Some for whom provisional measures were ordered “must live in the same community” alongside these fugitives. No information has been reported concerning any measures taken to recapture them. 10. That conflicting information has been provided in connection with the measures the Guatemalan authorities have taken to investigate the incidents involving some of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered, particularly Alberto Godínez and María García Domingo; 11. That the State has not provided information on the status of the processing of the complaints concerning the acts of intimidation that some of the beneficiaries – including Francisca Sales Martín, Natividad Pérez and Marcos, Juan and Ramiro Godínez Pérez, Alfonso Morales Jiménez and Arturo Federico Méndez Ortiz- are alleged to have experienced. Nor has the State reported on the progress in the proceedings against Colonel Felipe Miranda Trejo, former commander of Military Base No. 19 at Huehuetenango, or the progress in the investigation into the break-ins at the office of CONAVIGUA. 12. That the State still fails to mention the measures of protection the Court ordered it to provide to Fermina López Castro and Juan Mendoza Sánchez; 13. That the purpose of provisional measures in domestic legal systems (domestic procedural law) is, in general, to preserve the rights of the litigant parties, thereby ensuring that the execution of the eventual judgment on the merits will not be prejudiced by the litigants’ actions pendente lite; 3 Cf., inter alia, Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, par. 123; Villagrán Morales et al. Case. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 226; Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, par. 188; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 177. 4 Cf. Colotenango Case. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, February 2, 2000. Series E No. 2, Consideranda 7: Carpio Nicolle Case. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, September 30, 1999. Series E No. 2, Consideranda 2; and Carpio Nicolle Case. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 27, 1998. Series E No. 2, Consideranda 2. 5 Cf. Carpio Nicolle Case. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, September 19, 1997. Series E No. 2, Consideranda 4.