-5- 8. That on various occasions the State failed to present its reports or did not provide sufficient information, making it difficult for the Court to determine the actual circumstances of the beneficiaries of the measures ordered. This creates a situation of uncertainty that is incompatible with the preventative and protective nature of provisional measures. 9. That this Court has already made clear that it is the State’s duty to provide sufficient information on the measures adopted,4 and that the General Assembly of the OAS has reiterated that, in order for the Tribunal to be able to comply satisfactorily with its obligation to report as to the compliance with its rulings, State Parties must provide them with the information they require in a timely fashion. 5 That through notes provided in October and November of 2005 as well as January 2006, all parties were asked to provide their comments regarding the persistence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the possibility of irreparable damages that could justify upholding the provisional measures. This was requested taking into consideration that one of the main reasons for the implementation of the provisional measures was to comply with one of the agreements in the friendly settlement report issued by the Commission. 10. 11. That after 13 years of having ordered the provisional measures, the main point of controversy in regards to these remains the potential danger to the beneficiaries if the apprehension orders against the former patrol officers, who escaped from prison in April 1999, are not enforced. Furthermore, the reports from the State as well as the comments from the Commission and the representatives have revolved around the investigation into the facts which gave rise to the current provisional measures as well as the effectiveness of the implementation of security measures directed towards the beneficiaries, particularly in regards to the frequency in which foot and vehicle patrols have or have not occurred, in order to protect the boundaries of the community. 12. That Case No. 11.212 (Juan Pablo Chanay et al), which led to the present provisional measures, was resolved in Report No. 19/97 using the Commission’s Friendly Settlement mechanism on March 12, 1997 through Report No. 19/97 which established that, inter alia: [T]he agreement stipulates that the State of Guatemala shall provide communal assistance to the affected communities of Colotenango, in accordance with a program of projects agreed upon by the parties (to be executed by FONAPAZ.) The State shall pay Q 300,000, to be divided among the citizens directly affected by the events in question, and to be used to cover the medical and legal costs the petitioners deem pertinent. The petitioners shall provide the names of the individuals concerned to the Commission, and a list of the precise portion of the total each is to receive. The Inter-American Commission shall ensure that the specified amounts are delivered to the petitioners. The petitioners acknowledge that all their claims arising in respect of this case have been satisfied. The Government shall take the measures necessary to assure that justice is done in this case, including through the investigation of the facts; continued efforts to detain those implicated who remain at liberty and to punish those responsible, in accordance with the international norms in effect in the State so that those found responsible are not left in impunity. 4 Cfr. Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Human Rights Court of September 22, 2006, fifteenth and sixteenth considering clauses; Matter of the Communities Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Human Rights Court of February 7, 2006, sixteenth and seventeenth considering clauses, and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Human Rights Court of February 2, 2006, sixteenth considering clause. 5 General Assembly Order AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) approved during the fourth plenary session on June 5, 2007 entitled “Comments and Observations regarding the Annual Report of the Inter-American Human Rights Court”.