3 10. that The note of the Commission of March 27, 1999 (rectius 2000), where it stated […] due to the circumstances brought to the knowledge of the Honorable Court in the communications of November 5, 1999, December 10, 1999, and January 28, 2000, the Commission does not have the information necessary for the preparation of observations on the report of the Illustrious State of Colombia in the case under consideration. The Commission has reiterated its request for information to the petitioners, and shall send the corresponding observations as soon as it has the information necessary to formulate them. 11. The eleventh report of the State, of June 29, 2000, where it pointed out that in October 1998 the Protection Program of the Human Rights Office of the Ministry of the Interior delivered communications equipment, through H&S Comunicaciones Ltda, for the security and protection of the Zenú Indigenous Community. It also reported that in May 1999 the Risk Regulation and Evaluation Committee requested information from the National Police relative to the actions carried out by that organization to verify the operation of said equipment, which would be transmitted to the Court as soon as possible. Lastly, it added that, in accordance with the information provided by that Ministry, additional and specific requests for protection had not been received thereafter from the Zenú Indigenous Community. CONSIDERING: 1. That Colombia is a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and that on June 21, 1985 it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that “in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, with respect to matters not yet submitted to its knowledge, at the request of the Commission, “adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent.” 3. That in the terms of Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, At any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention points out the obligation that the State Parties have to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in that instrument, and to guarantee the free and full exercise thereof to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That it is the responsibility of the State to adopt security measures for all citizens, such commitment having to be even stricter in relationship to those persons who are involved in proceedings before organs of the inter-American human rights protection system, intended to determine whether rights provided for in the American Convention have been violated. 6. That the State and the Commission have the obligation to investigate and inform the Inter-American Court about the situation of the protected persons.