3 5. The November 21, 2001 brief with observations by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) in which it asked the State to clarify several “points of interest to determine the situation of the [Zenú] Community.” These had to do with patrolling the rural area of the Zenú Reservation, the control posts for entry to and exit from the Community, the nature of the information exchanged by members of the Community and State authorities, and the investigations conducted by the State. 6. The January 23, 2003, May 8, 2003, July 7, 2003 and September 9, 2003 briefs by the Commission in which it did not make additional observations regarding the situation of the persons protected by the Provisional Measures in the Zenú Community. 7. The March 21, 2003, May 21, 2003, and July 23, 2003 reports by the State in which it pointed out that, since its November 21, 2001 brief, the Commission “has not made any observations regarding the reports submitted by the Government of Colombia.” 8. The September 10, 2003 note by the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) in which, under instructions by the Court, it pointed out that the January 23, 2003, May 8, 2003, July 7, 2003 and September 9, 2003 briefs by the Commission “d[id] not [...] include additional observations to those made in previous reports,” for which reason it asked the Commission to clarify: whether the lack of detailed information can be interpreted as meaning that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency, envisaged in Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, which gave rise to adoption of the Provisional measures, has ceased, and whether it wishes that they be rescinded. 9. The September 26, 2003 report by the State in which it pointed out that “the protective measures taken in favor of the beneficiary Community are in force.” The State also informed of the ongoing investigations regarding the murders of the following persons: Dagoberto Santero Bacilo et al., Bernabela Riondo, Saúl Antonio Baltasar, and Alfonso Suárez Solano. 10. The October 10, 2003 brief with observations by the Commission, in which it stated that: [after] debating the matter the Commission deemed it pertinent to, on the one hand, close case 11,858, which does not preclude reopening it in response to a request by representatives of the victims and, on the other hand, to inform the [...] Court that it does not have information that enables it to verify the existence of the situation that justified issuing the Provisional Measures six years ago. This does not preclude the possibility that the Commission may deem it necessary to invoke once again the mechanism of Article 63(2) of the American Convention, if circumstances and the available information so require. Until then, the Commission will address the situation of the indigenous communities that inhabit this area through its authority regarding the study of general situations and thematic areas, in this case through the Rapporteurship on Indigenous Peoples. 11. The October 14, 2003 note by the Secretariat in which, under instructions by the President of the Court, it asked the State to make such observations as it deemed pertinent regarding the last brief with observations by the Commission. 12. The November 27, 2003 report by the State in which it pointed out that “it can be concluded that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that gave rise to ordering the Provisional Measures has ceased” with respect to the Zenú Community.