9 11. That the Court considers it appropriate to urge the State to guarantee the principle of distinction of International Humanitarian Law in relation to the members of the Peace Community, who are civilians that are not involved in the domestic armed conflict. 12. That in accordance with the Order of the President of October 9, 2000 and the Orders of the Inter-American Court of November 24, 2000, June 18, 2002, November 17, 2004 and March 15, 2005, the State must adopt such measures as may be necessary to protect the life and the right to humane treatment of all the members of the Peace Community (supra Having Seen clauses No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). 13. That pursuant to operative paragraph number six of the Order issued by the Court on March 15, 2005, the State must submit a report on the implementation of the provisional measures every two months. In addition, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives must submit their comments on the State reports (supra Having Seen clause No. 5). 14. That, on July 20, 2005, the State submitted the report requested in operative paragraph number three of the Order issued by the Court on March 15, 2005 (supra Having Seen clauses No. 5 and 12). 15. That the State has failed to submit the bimonthly reports due on September 15 and November 15, 2005 despite repeated requests from the Secretariat, as instructed by the President. Nor has the report requested to the State on December 22, 2005 and due on January 3, 2006 been received (supra Having Seen clauses No. 15, 18, 20 and 23). Moreover, the State has also failed to submit the following bimonthly report regarding compliance with the measures, which was due on January 15, 2006 despite the Court’s request (supra Having Seen clause No. 20). 16. That the Inter-American Commission has failed to submit comments on the State report of July 20, 2005, despite the request from the Secretariat, as instructed by the President (supra Having Seen clause No. 15). 17. 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 the Court’s decisions is particularly serious given the legal nature of these measures, which seek to prevent irreparable damage to persons in situations of extreme gravity and urgency.7 18. That the duty to report to the Court on the implementation of measures is twofold, which, for effective compliance, requires the formal submission of a document within the specified time limit and with specific, updated, detailed and factual information on the issues to which this obligation refers.8 It is most urgent that the 7 Cf., inter alia, Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 12, Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 11, and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 11, 2005, Considering clause No. 15. 8 Cf., inter alia, Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al (Radio Caracas Televisión – RCTV), supra note 2, Considering clause No. 17; Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, Considering clause No. 12, and Matter of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, Considering clause No. 14.