2 4. To call upon the State to investigate the reported facts that gave rise to these measures in order to identify those responsible and punish them. 5. To call upon the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures it has adopted in compliance with this Order by September 15, 2003, at the latest. 6. To call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present the comments that it deems pertinent to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights within one week of receiving notification of the State’s report. 7. To call upon the State, following its first communication (supra fifth operative paragraph), to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its comments on the said reports within six weeks of receiving them. […] 3. The brief of the State of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State”) of September 15, 2003, in which it advised that the Municipal Police of Chacao “had been providing protection services to Marta Colomina, for approximately one year and seven months” and indicated the names of the persons who provide this protection. The State also mentioned that on August 5, 2003, it had sent official letters to the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, the Ministerio Público (Office of the Attorney General) and the Office of the Ombudsman, requesting that “all the necessary measures to comply with the said provisional measures” be ordered. 4. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of September 18, 2003, requesting the State to clarify whether the information it had forwarded on September 15 corresponded to the information requested in the Order of July 30, 2003, or to that requested in the fifth operative paragraph of the Order of the Court of September 8, 2003, on the provisional measures. 5. The note of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) of October 1, 2003, forwarding the brief of the petitioners in the case, in which it indicated that the State “had done nothing to comply” with the provisional measures adopted by the Court. Likewise, it stated that no State body had contacted the beneficiaries so as to allow them to take part in the implementation of the measures, and that there was no information to indicate that the State was investigating the facts. Moreover, the petitioners explained that the continued silence of the Minister of the Interior and Justice and the Attorney General was due, at least in part, to criteria established by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Chamber’s case law maintained “the pre-eminence of sovereignty, which can only be derogated exceptionally, in particular and specific cases.” Lastly, the petitioners requested the Court to summon the parties to a public hearing at its next session in order to assess the State’s failure to comply with the provisional measures. 6. The comments of the Commission of October 14, 2003, on the State’s first report in which it advised that the journalist, Marta Colomina, already had a police escort: when the ICHR requested the provisional measures and now, three months later, Venezuela attempts to confuse the Court by affirming that it is granting the measures of protection, when the truth is that it has not complied with the Orders of the Court, requiring the State to provide adequate protection to Marta Colomina and Liliana