6 * * * 16. The Court has verified that according to the information presented by the parties (supra Considering clauses 6 through 15), since the time the provisional measures came into effect, the beneficiaries of the measures have continued to be the object of acts of harassment, intimidation, and other situations that put their life and personal integrity at risk or have affected them. Therefore, this Tribunal considers that there is a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that puts in grave risk the life and integrity of the beneficiaries of the present measures. 17. Specifically, this Tribunal considers that the death of another beneficiary, Oscar Barrios, is a clear indication of the lack of effective implementation of the provisional measures. This necessarily implies the State’s failure to comply with the measures ordered by the Court, whose main purpose is the effective protection and preservation of the life and personal integrity of the members of the Barrios family.7 This death is an extremely grave fact that the Tribunal regrets. 18. In this sense, the Court considers that the State has not effectively adopted the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal in its previous Orders (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). Due to the gravity of the situation of the members of the Barrios family, proven by the most recent facts provided by the representatives and the Commission, it is necessary to reiterate the requirement made to the State, to immediately and effectively adopt all the measures necessary to guarantee the full exercise of the rights to life and humane treatment of the members of the Barrios family, to avoid and stop the threats and harassment, as well as to allow the beneficiaries to lead a normal life without fear. 19. In addition to the aforementioned, this Tribunal observes that the State has failed to duly inform on the implementation of the measures for the protection of the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures issued by the Court, nor has it informed on whether these measures have been effective in protecting those rights, or if the representatives have been able to participate in the implementation of the measures. Nor has it offered updated and detailed information on the investigations ordered by the Court (supra Considering clauses 9 and 15). 20. In this regard, the Court considers it appropriate to reiterate that the States Party to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle is applicable not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with protected rights) but also to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.8 7 Cfr. Case of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó Communities. Provisional measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of February 7, 2006, Considering clause twenty-one. 8 Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, Considering clause six, and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of July 8, 2009, Considering clause five.