8 in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).3 They must also guarantee the effectiveness of those provisions (effet utile).4 9. Under the President’s June 4, 1995 Order and the Court’s orders of September 19, 1995, February 1, 1996, September 10, 1996, June 19, 1998, November 27, 1998, September 30, 1999 and September 5, 2001, the State has an obligation to adopt the protective and investigative measures necessary to preserve the life and integrity of person of Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio and of Mrs. Karen Fischer, on whose behalf the Court ordered provisional measures. 10. The following has been established from the reports submitted by the State and the comments submitted by the Commission and the representatives of the beneficiaries in 2004, and from the testimony and final oral pleadings given at the public hearing at the seat of the Court on July 5 and 6, 2004: a. b. c. Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio has a security detail that ensures her personal safety, but the State withdrew the perimeter security detail at her place of work. Guatemala acknowledged this fact in its reports of April 6, 2004 and May 27, 2004 (supra ‘Having Seen’ 23 and 27); Mrs. Karen Fischer has been the target of a number of threats and an attempt on her life on June 19, 2004, none of which the State has investigated (supra ‘Having Seen’ 16 and 29). The State also failed to supply Mrs. Fischer’s security detail with sufficient equipment, which meant that she had to provide them with weapons herself. Furthermore, the members of her security detail do not have weapons permits, official identifications or medical insurance and are paid very little. (supra ‘Having Seen’ 24 and 33); and The State acknowledged the danger that the persons involved in the present case are in and expressed its willingness to expand the existing measures (supra ‘Having Seen’ 37). 11. The Court notes with concern that for as long as these provisional measures have been ordered, the State has never fully complied with them, despite the fact that the underlying reason for the adoption of these measures is to effectively protect the life and the integrity of person of Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio and Mrs. Karen Fischer. 12. The State has not fully reported on the specific measures it has taken to investigate the recent threats allegedly made against Mrs. Karen Fischer and the facts that necessitated the provisional measures. 3 Cf., inter alia, Matter of Liliana Ortega et al.; Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al.; Matter of Luis Uzcátegui; Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 4, 2004, ‘considering’ seven; Matter of Lysias Fleury. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, ‘considering’ seven; and Matter of James et al.. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, ‘considering’ six. 4 Cf., inter alia, Matter of Liliana Ortega et al; Luisiana Ríos et al.; Luis Uzcátegui; Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 4, 2004, ‘considering’ twelve; Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par. 142; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, par. 164.