5 7. That the provisional measures have an exceptional nature and are therefore ordered having regard to the needs for protection and, once ordered, they must be maintained in force if the Court considers that the basic requirements of the situation of extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to avoid irreparable damage to the rights of the persons protected by said measures, still exist.1 8. That this Court considers that the State has not given detailed information on the current risk situation of each beneficiary or on the protection measures the State is implementing to protect the beneficiaries. In fact, the State has given information solely on some of the 20 persons and their next of kin that are beneficiaries of the provisional measures (supra Considering paragraph No. 4). Furthermore, it is particularly worrisome that the representatives of the beneficiaries have not yet submitted their comments. 9. That the State has not yet submitted its reports and the insufficient information given by the representatives are an obstacle to determining the real situation of the beneficiaries of the measures, which resulted in a situation of uncertainty, in certain periods, that is not compatible with the preventive and protective nature of the provisional measures. 10. That the Court has established that failure by the State to comply with its duty to report on the provisional measures adopted in compliance with Court orders is particularly serious given the legal nature of these measures, which seek to prevent irreparable damage to persons in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency.2 The duty to report is twofold in that compliance with said duty requires the formal submission of a document within the specified time limit as well as the specific, updated, detailed and factual material reference to the issues that fall within the scope of said obligation.3 It is paramount that the ordered measures get reflected in the State’s reports describing the means, actions, and goals set by the State in agreement with the specific needs of protection of the beneficiaries thereof, in such a manner that they give real sense and provide a continuum in those reports.4 11. That, despite the foregoing, the Court stresses the particular importance of the comments on the information furnished by the State that both the Commission and the representatives of the beneficiaries may submit. Said comments are essential to evaluate 1 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering paragraph No. 3; Case of Álvarez et al. Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, Considering paragraph No. 13; and Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering paragraph No. 7. 2 Cf., inter alia, Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, Considering paragraph No. 16; Matter of San José de Apartadó Peace Community. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering paragraph No. 17; and Case of BámacaVelásquez. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 11, 2005, Considering paragraph No. 15. 3 Cf., inter alia, Matter of Carlos Nieto-Palma et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering paragraph No. 16; Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering paragraph No. 14; and Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, Considering paragraph No. 16. 4 Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures regarding Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Considering paragraph No. 14