129. In this regard, the Court takes into consideration that, when processing the provisional measures in 2004, it required the State, in view of the special characteristics of the case, to order “immediately, the [measures] that [were] necessary to protect effectively the life and personal integrity”165 of the beneficiaries, who were in to situation of extreme gravity and urgency that required measures of protection to avoid irreparable harm to them. Subsequently, in 2005, the Court required Venezuela to implement the “necessary permanent custody measures to provide security to the homes of Maritza Barrios [mother of Rigoberto, Oscar José and Wilmer José Flores Barrios], and Juan [José] Barrios.”166 Also, in 2010, the Court declared that “the death of the […] beneficiary Oscar [José] Barrios denote[d] the failure to implement the provisional measures effectively,” considered that “the State ha[d] not adopted the provisional measures ordered by this Court effectively,” and verified “the State’s failure to comply [with the obligation] to implement the provisional measures ordered by this Court.”167 Moreover, in its orders of November 25, 2010, and February 21, 2011, the Court reaffirmed that the deaths and the attacks on the beneficiaries “represented serious non-compliance by the State” with the provisional measures.168 130. The foregoing reveals that the State has not demonstrated that it took adequate and effective steps to prevent the attempts on the lives of the five above-mentioned members of the Barrios family. The domestic measure of protection consisted exclusively of sporadic patrols to the homes of some members of the Barrios family, not including, for example, Luis Alberto Barrios and Wilmer José Flores Barrios. Moreover, the State has not provided evidence that it conducted a serious and thorough investigation of the facts that preceded the attacks, even though Oscar José Barrios was a minor at the time of the events. Hence this measure was insufficient to mitigate the danger suffered by the victims and to prevent future acts of violence. 131. Regarding the deaths of Luis Alberto Barrios, Oscar José Barrios, Wilmer José Flores Barrios and Juan José Barrios that occurred in September 2004, November 2009, September 2010 and May 2011, and the attempt on the life of Néstor Caudi Barrios in January 2011, the State was fully aware of the specific situation of danger of the victims, which increased with the passage of time and the occurrence of new deaths or violent acts. Moreover, regarding the State’s argument that the death of Juan José Barrios was related to a debt for a purchase he had made (supra para. 108), the Court notes that it has insufficient evidence in this regard, other than a note of the Twentieth Prosecutor, which contains a four-page report on the investigation of the incident. Consequently, the Court considers that the State failed to fulfill its obligation to adopt the necessary and reasonable measures to ensure the right to life of Luis Alberto Barrios, Oscar José Barrios, Wilmer José Flores Barrios and Juan José Barrios, and the right to personal integrity of Néstor Caudi Barrios who, in addition, were beneficiaries of precautionary and provisional measures granted by the inter-American human rights system. The international responsibility for these facts can be attributed to the State to the extent that it failed to comply with its obligation of prevention derived from Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the Convention, read in 165 Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures. Order of November 23, 2004, supra note 10, second operative paragraph. 166 Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 29, 2005, fifth operative paragraph. 167 Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, considering paragraphs 17 and 18, and first operative paragraph. 168 Cf. Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures. Order of November 25, 2010, supra note 158, first declarative paragraph, and Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional measures. Order of February 21, 2011, supra note 159, considering paragraph 13. 46