11 Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted and to call on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its comments on these reports within six weeks of receiving them. [...] 21. The third report of the State of February 28, 2003, and its attachments, with which it sent a copy of “the official letters addressed [...] [to the] Attorney General, the Ombudsman, the Minister of the Interior and Justice, and the Commander General of the Police Armed Forces of the state of Falcón, so that, within the framework of their legal jurisdiction, they should proceed to comply with the Orders” issued by the Court. 22. The communication of the State of March 12, 2003, requesting an extension to present “a report on the measures taken by the Venezuelan State to comply fully with the Orders” issued by the Court with regard to provisional measures. 23. The brief of March 13, 2003, and its attachments, in which the Commission presented its comments on the third report of the State. In this respect, it indicated that, in this report, Venezuela had referred to “formal measures taken by the State’s Agent before the domestic authorities,” but did not provide any information about the provisional measures, and this constituted “failure to comply with the express mandate of the Court.” It added that the State “ha[d] not implemented any safety mechanism and[,...] to the contrary, the acts of intimidation to which the victims ha[d] been subjected ha[d] continued.” 24. Notes CDH-S/431 and CDH-S/432 of March 26, 2003, in which the Secretariat requested the State and the Commission to forward, in their next communications, the information on compliance with “the fifth operative paragraph of the Order issued by the Court on February 20, 2003” (supra twentieth having seen paragraph), “without prejudice, to forwarding a brief with information in this respect at any time, if they deem this appropriate.” 25. The fourth report of the State of April 25, 2003, and its attachments, in which it forwarded copies o the report presented “by the prosecutor who was assigned to investigate the case.” 26. The brief of April 29, 2003, and its attachments, in which the Commission advised that “it had written to the Venezuelan State on March 13, 2003, requesting a meeting during the week of March 17, 2003,” but had not received a reply to this request. The Commission had repeated this request to Venezuela on April 15, 2003, and the State had replied on April 23, 2003, that “it [was] studying an appropriate date, in order to propose it to the Commission and [...] reach agreement on a date and time for the meeting. 27. The brief of June 9, 2003, and its attachment, in which the Commission presented its comments on the fourth report of the State (supra twenty-fifth having seen paragraph), which are summarized as follows: a) Regarding the investigation of the facts, Venezuela only indicated that information had been exchanged between the different State entities responsible for complying with the provisional measures, without providing “specific, up-to-date information on the steps taken in order to safeguard the personal safety and lives of the journalists who were the beneficiaries of the