5 8. That, likewise, the State underscored “that mentioned by the Inter-American Commission in its observations to the State’s [e]ighteenth [r]eport, emphasizing that it had not received any briefs from the beneficiary and his family or their representatives.” 9. That the State indicated, lastly, that though in its report of February 29, 2008, it had contended that the protection of Vásquez Chumo and the members of his family should continue until a final judgment was issued against César Augusto Santoyo Castro, who remains fugitive and was co-accused in the criminal proceedings against Vásquez Chumo for the deaths of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, “this situation may be of a permanent nature that would be far removed from the provisional nature of the measures ordered by the Court.” 10. That on November 3, 2008, the deadline for Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and the members of his family or their representative to present the observations requested in the Order of the Court of May 3, 2008, passed without these having been received by the Court’s Secretariat (supra Having Seen clause No. 3). Said observations were to refer to the continuance and existence of the requisites of extreme gravity and urgency and the possibility of irreparable damage that would justify maintaining in force the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in favor of Vásquez Chumo and the members of his family. The Court observes that the last communication by Vásquez Chumo or his representative regarding this matter was submitted to it on July 22, 2004. 11. That the Commission indicated that “it does not have any information other than that presented by the […] State and, therefore, considers it pertinent to underscore that compliance with orders of the Court must include a response on the part of the State that translates into effective compliance with the obligations that derive from the adoption of provisional measures and provides an accounting of its compliance through a periodic report that refers expressly to the situation of the beneficiary and his family members.” Because it has “not received briefs in relation to Vásquez Chumo and his family or their representatives, and in accord with the information regarding the normal progression of the measures of protection,” the Commission indicated that it “did not have observations [on the matter.]” * * * 12. That the Court values the effort on the part of the State in adopting the measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and his family members (supra Considering clause No. 5). Likewise, it recognizes that the State has complied with its obligation to inform the Tribunal on the actions carried out in order to implement the present measures. 13. That the Court observes that the State has requested it to lift the provisional measures in favor of Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and his family members, “since no evidence has been found on the existence of threats against their physical integrity or […] material goods” (supra Having Seen Clause No. 6). Additionally, the Court notes that this