16 Barrera (supra Having Seen clause No. 8(b)(ix)). The information submitted has not been sufficiently accurate and complete for the Court to deem that it has all the evidence required to assess the effectiveness of the investigations conducted and their relevancy to elucidate the facts which gave rise to the adoption of these measures, as well as to identify those responsible for such acts and impose the sanctions prescribed thereon. In view of the foregoing, the State must submit more detailed and up-to-date information about such proceedings. 17. That the submission of the information requested by the Court is essential to assess the effective compliance of the protection measures ordered by the Court. 18. That from the information which has been submitted it can be inferred that the measures necessary for reopening the Comité Cívico por los Derechos Humanos del Meta (Meta Department Human Rights Civic Committee) have not been adopted (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(c), 10(c), and 11(c)). In view of the foregoing, the State must adopt effective measures in conjunction with the beneficiaries or the representatives thereof in order to reopen said Committee. 19. That the States have the specific duty to protect those persons who work in non-government organizations, as well as to afford effective and adequate guarantees to defenders of human rights so that they may freely perform their activities, preventing actions which restrict or hamper their work, as the activities they carry out are a positive contribution which supplements the actions taken by the State as guarantor of the rights of the persons under the jurisdiction thereof.5 20. That no coordination and negotiation meetings have been held between the beneficiaries and the State since January 27, 2005 (supra Having Seen clauses No. 8(d)(i), 10(d)(i), and 11(d)). In this regard, the State must take all such steps as may be relevant in order to plan and implement the measures ordered by the Court in conjunction with the beneficiaries, so that such protection measures may be duly and effectively afforded. 21. That it is essential that the provisional measures are maintained in full force and effect until the Court orders their discontinuance and serves notice thereof6 upon the State. NOW THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 25 and 29 of its Rules of Procedure, 5 Cf. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. In favor of the members of the Equipo de estudios comunitarios y acción psicosocial (Community Studies and Psychological Action Team) (ECAP). Provisional Measures, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 10; Matter of Gloria Giralt de García-Prieto et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 8; and Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 8; OAS General Assembly Resolution 2067 (XXXV-O/05); OAS General Assembly Resolution 2036 (XXXIV-O/04); OAS General Assembly Resolution 1920 (XXXIII-O/03); OAS General Assembly Resolution 1842 (XXXII-O/02); OAS General Assembly Resolution 1818 (XXXI-O/01); and UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. General Assembly Resolution 53/144. 6 Cf. Matter of Gómez-Paquiyauri. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering clause No. 19; Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 4; and Matter of Ramírez-Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, Considering clause No. 6.