4. The communication dated November 20, 2009, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted a note sent by the Venezuelan State with regard to these measures and its comments on it, as well as the briefs dated November 25, 2009, and July 28, 2010, in which it submitted its comments on the first and second State reports, respectively (supra Having Seen 2). 5. The notes from the Secretariat dated January 29, February 8, March 25, and May 4, 2010, in which it reiterated to the State its deadline for submitting its second report on the adoption of the measures necessary for establishing the status and whereabouts of the beneficiary and protecting his life and personal integrity, in keeping with the third operative paragraph of the Order issued by the Tribunal on November 17, 2009 (supra Having Seen 1). 6. The notes from the Secretariat dated November 11, 2010, and February 11 and April 8, 2011, reminding the Venezuelan State that it must report to the Inter-American Court every two months starting on November 20, 2009, with regard to the implementation of the provisional measures ordered in this matter (supra Having Seen 1). As of the issuing of this Order, the State’s bimonthly reports have not been received. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”) since August 9, 1977, and, in keeping with Article 62 of the Convention, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention holds that, “In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.” 3. The provisions established in Article 63(2) of the Convention make the provisional measures ordered by this Tribunal obligatory, as the basic principle of International Law, based on international case law, has indicated that States must comply with their obligations under the Convention in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 These orders imply a special duty to protect the beneficiaries of the measures as long as they are in force. A failure to comply with them can leave the State internationally responsible.2 4. Article 63(2) of the Convention requires that in order for the Court to issue provisional measures, three conditions must be met: i) “extreme gravity;” ii) “urgency,” and 1 Cf. Case of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 14, 1998. Considering 6; Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 4, 2011. Considering 4, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2011, Considering 3. 2 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Benjamin, Constantine et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 to 200; Matter of Aalvarado Reyes et al. Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November Considering 4. and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Judgment of American Court of Human Rights of August 26, 2010. Considering 3. 2 and Costs. Provisional 26, 2010, the Inter-