3. The briefs of September 17 and November 2010; March 28, April 13, May 27, August 11, October 10, and December 7, 2011, and February 10, and April 12, 2012, wherein the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State” or “Colombia”) reported on the implementation of the provisional measures and presented a request to rescind the measures in relation to some beneficiaries. 4. The briefs of August 12, October 14 and 26 and November 24, 2010; June 3, November 29, and December 2 and 26, 2011; and April 18 and June 21, 2012, and the annexes thereto, wherein the representatives of the beneficiaries (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their observations to what was reported by the State and additional information regarding the implementation of these provisional measures. 5. The communications of April 12, May 26, July 14, and September 20, 2011, and January 13, April 11 and June 8 20121, wherein the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented its observations with regard to the information presented by the State and the corresponding observations of the representatives. 6. The notes of September 22 and November 22, 2010, and April 6, 2011, wherein the Secretariat of the Court, on the instructions of the President of the Court, expressly requested that the representatives, in their observations to the State’s reports, refer to the request to rescind the measures ordered in favor of beneficiary William Rodríguez Quintero, as well as to the State’s request for the Court “to assess […] the enforcement of the provisional measures granted in favor of the persons identified in operative paragraph one of the Order of the […] Court of August 26, 2010”. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Colombia became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) on July 31, 1973, and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, on June 21, 1985. 2. According to the provision established in Article 63(2) of the Convention, provisional measures ordered by the Court are binding on the State in conformity to a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of the States, as supported by international jurisprudence, under which States are required to comply with international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). 2 These orders imply a special duty to protect the beneficiaries of the measures, insofar as they are in force, and any breach thereto may trigger international responsibility of the State. 3 1 The Inter-American Commission presented these observations on June 8, 2012, without having the opportunity of viewing the respective observations of the representatives on the State’s report of April 12, 2012, given that they presented the observations on June 21, 2012. 2 See Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the Court of June 14, 1998, Considering clause 6; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding México. Order of the Court of May 26, 2010, Considering clause 5, and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the President of the Court of July 21, 2010, Considering clause 4. 3 See Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 to 200; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al. Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of November 26, 2010; Considering clause 4. 2