precisely after the recent ruling of the CNDH that Jose Angel, Nitza Paola, and Rocío Irene had been forcibly disappeared by Chihuahua state officials.” 20. The Court notes that the representatives have indicated at least seven new acts of harassment that could indicate an increase in the situation of risk of the next of kin who are beneficiaries, as well as the increase in the risk of the disappeared persons owing to the passage of time (supra considering paragraph 17). Based on the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that the continuing acts of harassment presumably initiated by the State’s law enforcement agents against the beneficiaries have reached such a level of intensity that it has forced them to move house, change their children’s schools and, in general, remain in hiding owing to fear. In this regard, the Court notes that the State has not forwarded specific information on the measures to eliminate the beneficiaries’ situation of risk. 21. Owing to the foregoing, and based on the information presented by the representatives, the Commission and the State, the Court notes that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency persists with regard to the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries. Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to maintain these measures of protection in favor of the beneficiaries. 22. Therefore, in agreement with the beneficiaries or their representatives, the State must conduct a risk assessment of each beneficiary and provide each one with adequate measures of protection. 23. In addition, the Court requests the representatives to present their respective observations on the State’s report, within the term established in the operative paragraphs of this Order, including an updated assessment of the situation of risk of the beneficiaries.8 d) The State’s obligation to provide information 24. On August 7, 2012, the State asked for an additional 15 days to present its respective report; on the President’s instructions, this term was granted. Subsequently, on August 22, 2012, the State requested an additional five-day extension, which was granted in a communication of the Secretariat of August 23, 2012, establishing a new time frame that expired on August 27, 2012. On November 9, 2012, the Secretariat reiterated to the State that it should forward the corresponding report, without the State having presented it at this date. Therefore, the Court finds it pertinent to recall that failure to comply with the State’s obligation to provide information on all the provisional measures adopted in compliance with the Court’s decisions is especially serious, given the legal nature of these measures that seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency.9 25. The Court reiterates that the obligation to provide information is not complied with by the mere formal submission of a document to the Court, but rather constitutes a twofold obligation that, for effective compliance, requires the formal presentation of a document 8 Cf. Matter of Gladys Lanza Ochoa, supra note 5, twenty-fifth considering paragraph, and Matter of José Luís Galdámez Álvarez et al., supra note 1, seventeenth considering paragraph. 9 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 11, 2005, fifteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional measures with regard to Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 15, 2011, twelfth considering paragraph. 9