4 members of the Community. Therefore, they must be considered also as members. In this case, it is convenient to define the Community of Paz de San José de Apartadó collectively because this is an affectation of fundamental individual rights, such as life and personal integrity […].4 8. That the collective definition of the beneficiaries of these provisional measures is based on their belonging to the Peace Community, their geographical location in the municipality of San José de Apartadó, and the situation of grave danger they are going through because they are members of said Community. In this sense, the 136 families settled in the veredas of San Josesito, La Antena, La Cristalina, Arenas Altas, La Unión, Mulatos, and La Esperanza, as members of the Peace Community that “assume all the principles of the Peace Community” (supra Considering Clause number 6), must be understood as beneficiaries of these provisional measures. In the case of the 144 families that live in “humanitarian areas”, their membership in the Peace Community is not yet clear. In this regard, the representative informed that this group of families “has identified with the principles of the Peace Community even though it has not assumed all the commitments to participate in community tasks and decisions.” This situation must be clarified by the representative and the Inter-American Commission; assessed by the Tribunal when adopting these provisional measures (supra Considering Clause number 7). 9. That given the collective dimension of the provisional measures ordered in this matter, this Tribunal has considered that the members of the Peace Community, beneficiaries of these measures, do not need to be previously named. Besides, the Court understands that in matters such as the present, in which the beneficiaries of the measures of protection are in a situation of grave risk based on their membership to a community, the provision of a list with the name of these people could make the situation worse. 10. That despite the aforementioned, the State’s request with regard to the determination of the beneficiaries of these measures must be attended. It is important to remember that when it adopted these provisional measures, the Court assessed that the members of the Peace Community “can be identified and individualized.” When presenting the grounds for its request for the adoption of provisional measures, the Commission informed the Tribunal that the “members [of the Peace Community] are” even “identified through an identity card” and it stated that “after three years of validity of the precautionary measures, the State did not question or argue that it had any problems in identifying the people they should protect. [T]he State understands the collective dimension of the problem, it knows who it has to protect, it understands the geographical limits, and the element of membership to the Community, as well as its operative mechanisms […].”5 11. That due to the present situation, it is necessary to reiterate that the State must, in a manner agreed on with the representative of the beneficiaries of these provisional measures plan and implement the measures most adequate for the protection and security of the members of the Peace Community.6 This assumes the adoption of protection measures that take into consideration the risk to the life and personal integrity of the members of the Community associated to revealing their names. Likewise, for the 4 Cfr. Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, supra note 2, Having Seen paragraph 9. Cfr. Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, supra note 2, Having Seen paragraph number 9, subparagraphs j) and k). 6 Cfr. Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of March 15, 2005, second operative paragraph subparagraph i). 5