3 measures such as suspension of visits had been applied. The Secretariat also informed the State that the Inter-American Commission had alleged other serious incidents not mentioned by the State in its fourth report. The Commission had also reported information related to compliance with operative paragraph three of the Court’s August 29, 2002 Order (supra ‘Having Seen’ 2). Although the Court was recently informed that the Justice and Peace Commission had been allowed to visit the prison, the Court had not received any information regarding the establishment of a suitable mechanism to coordinate and oversee compliance with the provisional measures it had ordered. The Court also reminded the State that the reports the latter is to file every two months are to include updated lists of all inmates at Urso Branco Prison so as to enable the Court to keep track of the names of those released and the names of incoming prisoners; the lists are also to show the number and names of the inmates who are serving sentences and the number and names of those who have not yet been convicted, pursuant to operative paragraph four of the Court’s June 18, 2002 Order (supra ‘Having Seen’ 1) and operative paragraph seven of its August 29, 2002 Order (supra ‘Having Seen’ 2). To continue its examination of compliance with the provisional measures it had ordered, the Court asked the State to submit its fifth report by no later than February 16, 2004 (the deadline for which had expired on October 14, 2003). That report was to have detailed compliance with the terms of the Court’s two orders and the events and problems described in the Commission’s comments on the State’s fourth report but which Brazil had not mentioned in that report. 11. The February 20, 2004 brief whereby the State presented its fifth report on compliance with the provisional measures. The Secretariat was awaiting the attachments to that brief, one of which was to have been the updated list of inmates at Urso Branco Prison (the State indicated that the list in question would be sent to the Court “within ten days”). In keeping with operative paragraph four of the June 18, 2002 Order (supra ‘Having Seen’ 1), the Secretariat indicated that the Commission had until May 9, 2004 to present its comments on the State’s fifth report. It gave the petitioners four weeks to submit any comments they deemed pertinent on the State’s report; in other words, until April 6, 2004. 12. The March 11, 2004 brief whereby Brazil presented the attachments to its fifth report. The Secretariat noted that the State did not file all the documents listed as attachments and therefore asked the State to provide them forthwith. It reminded the State that: a) under the terms of operative paragraph two of the Court’s June 18, 2002 Order and operative paragraph four of its August 29, 2002 Order, when it submits its reports the State must give a detailed accounting of the investigation into the facts that necessitated the adoption of these provisional measures, in order to identify those responsible and punish them accordingly. This includes the investigation into the serious events that transpired at the Urso Branco Prison even after the Court issued the June 18, 2002 Order; and b) pursuant to operative paragraph four of the Court’s June 18, 2002 Order and operative paragraph seven of its August 29, 2002 Order, when the State submits its reports it is to present an updated list of all the inmates at the Urso Branco Prison, so that released and incoming inmates can be identified; it must also show the number and name of the inmates serving sentences and of unconvicted inmates. 13. The April 7, 2004 brief and its attachments, where the petitioners filed their comments on the State’s fifth report (supra ‘Having Seen’ 11).