2 Metropolitan Area of Caracas and National Prosecutor 24 were commissioned” with the aim of complying with the measure set forth in operative paragraph 3 of the Order of the Court in the instant case (supra Having Seen 1). 3. The December 20, 2002 observations of the Inter-American Commission on the first report by the State on the Provisional Measures, in which it stated that it “deemed it crucial to promote such measures as may be necessary for full protection of the persons listed by the Inter-American Court in the November 27, 2002 Order,” since no official act had been carried out by the State to fully comply with the Provisional Measures. 4. The December 20, 2002 note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) in which, under instructions by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the President”), it asked the Venezuelan State to submit a report on implementation of the Provisional Measures no later than January 10, 2003. 5. The January 10, 2003 report by Venezuela in which it referred to implementation of the Provisional Measures and it stated that on December 11, 2002 “the Attorney General of the Republic, [...] report[ed] that Public Prosecutor 44 of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judiciary Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas and National Prosecutor 24 were commissioned with the aim of complying with the measure set forth in operative paragraph 3 of the Order of [the] Court.” 6. The January 21, 2003 brief by the Inter-American Commission in which it stated “its deep concern, since the second report by the Venezuelan State on January 10, 2003 merely reiterates what it stated in its first report and does not provide any information that demonstrates effective compliance by the State with the Provisional Measures granted by the Court.” 7. The request by the Commission, in its January 21, 2003 brief (supra Having Seen 6), requesting that “the parties be urgently summoned to a public hearing at its seat during the forthcoming session, with the aim of evaluating compliance by the State with the Provisional Measures” in the Liliana Ortega et al. case. 8. The January 24, 2003 Order of the President of the Court, in which, having consulted with all the Judges of the Court, he decided: 1. To summon the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 25, 2003, from 9:00 hours to 13:00 hours, for the Court to hear their viewpoints regarding the facts and circumstances pertaining to implementation of the Provisional Measures in the cases of Liliana Ortega et al., Luis Uzcátegui, and Luisiana Ríos et al. […] 9. The January 23, 2003 brief by the Inter-American Commission, received at the Secretariat on January 27, in which it asked the Court, inter alia, to hear the testimony of Liliana Ortega with respect to the Provisional Measures granted in favor of Liliana Ortega, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda Páez, Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano, Alicia de González, and Carmen Alicia Mendoza “in the event that [the] Court decides to summon a public hearing during its forthcoming session.”