2 3. That Article 25(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that “[a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention.” 4. That, pursuant to the Order of the President of the Court of October 9, 2000, and the Orders of the Inter-American Court of November 24, 2000, June 18, 2002, November 17, 2004, March 15, 2005, and February 2, 2006 (supra third having seen paragraph), the State must, inter alia: (a) adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of all the members of the Peace Community; (b) maintain the necessary measures to ensure that the beneficiaries may continue living in their usual residence and ensure the necessary conditions so that the members of the Peace Community who have been forced to displace to other parts of the country may return to their homes; and (c) establish, by mutual agreement with the beneficiaries or their representatives, a mechanism for continuous monitoring and permanent security in this Community. * * * 5. That, in matters such as this,1 the Court has ordered the protection of a plurality of individuals who have not been named previously, but who can be identified and determined, and who are in a situation of grave danger owing to their membership in a group or community. 6. That the State asked the Court to “define which settlements in the district (corregimiento) of San José de Apartadó are covered by the Order for provisional measures, and, if possible, the approximate number of people or groups of people. In its most recent communication of November 6, 2007, the State reiterated this request and asked the Court “to indicate the names of the beneficiaries [of these provisional measures].” 7. That, when ordering these provisional measures, the Court estimated that the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó was composed of approximately 1,200 people; hence, it constituted “an organized community, located in a specific geographical place, whose members can be identified and individualized.”2 According to information provided by the representative, the Peace Community is mainly established in the central settlement of San José de Apartadó, and the villages (veredas) of La Unión, Arenas Altas and La Esperanza, as well as in another eight villages where “Humanitarian Zones” have been set up. 8. That, since one of the State’s obligations in the context of these provisional measures is to ensure the necessary conditions for the members of the Peace Community who were forced to displace to other parts of the country to return to their homes, the State reported that more than 1,000 families had returned voluntarily to the district of San José de Apartadó, and had been provided with institutional support. However, the representative 1 Cf., inter alia, Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó v. Colombia. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2000, seventh considering paragraph; Case of Children Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM v. Brazil. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2005, sixth considering paragraph; Matter of The Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó v. Colombia. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7 2006, eighth considering paragraph. 2 Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó v. Colombia. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. supra note 1, seventh considering paragraph.