7 21. In this sense, the States Parties to the Convention who have acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted in compliance of that ordered by the Tribunal in those decisions.9 For its effective compliance, the duty to inform constitutes an obligation which requires the formal presentation of a document within the established time period and the specific, certain, real, and detailed reasons for said obligation.10 The timely observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the matters ordered by the latter is fundamental in evaluating the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.11 Therefore: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 27 and 31 of the Rules of Procedure, Resolves to: 1. Declare that the death of the beneficiary Oscar Barrios denotes the State’s failure to comply with an effective implementation of the provisional measures ordered by this Court. 2. Maintain the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights through its Orders of November 23, 2004 and June 29th and September 22, 2005. 3. Reiterate to the State that it shall maintain the measures it has adopted and immediately issue those necessary to effectively protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of the present provisional measures. 4. To reiterate to the State that it shall offer the permanent measures of protection necessary to offer security to the homes of Maritza Barrios, Juan Barrios, and Orismar Carolina Alzul García, without detriment to the possibility to allow the parties to agree on 9 Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, Considering clause seven; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 20, 2009, Considering clause twenty, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 24, 2009, Considering clause seven. 10 Cfr. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of December 2, 2003, Considering Clause number twelve; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of May 3, 2008, Considering clause ten, and Matter of Lysias Fleury. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Court of November 25, 2008, Considering clause eight. 11 Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, Considering clause five; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the Court of November 19, 2009, Considering clause seven, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 9, Considering clause seven.