3 Guatemala added, furthermore, that it had received with the greatest attention the order for provisional measures issued by the President of the Court and had adopted provisions in addition to those included in its general policy of respect for human rights in order to comply with it. [The Government indicated that the authorities have again been ordered to] provide concrete, specific protection to the persons listed, in such a way that they themselves may freely specify the type of protection they desire [and to] proceed with the arrests ordered by the courts in the course of the investigation of the facts related to the consolidated case 10.674. 4. On July 29, 1991, at 9:30 hours, the Court met to decide on the notes submitted by Guatemala on July 24 and 26 requesting the postponement of the hearing convened for 15:00 hours that day. The Court ordered the public hearing to be held on July 30, in order to hear the arguments of Guatemala and the Commission with regard to the postponement sought and to likewise learn what measures had been taken by that country in order to comply with the President's order of last July 15. The public hearing was held at 15:00 hours on July 30, 1991, at the seat of the Court. There appeared before the Court: For the Government of Guatemala: Lic. Manuel Villacorta-Mirón, Vice-Minister of Foreing Affairs, Licda. Miriam Cabrera-Passarelli, Ambassador of Guatemala to Costa Rica, Lic. Mario Marroquín-Nájera, General Director for Multilateral Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, For the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Dr. Patrick Robinson, President of the Commission, Christina M. Cerna, Attorney, Anne Manuel, Adviser. At the hearing, the Agent for Guatemala renewed his request for a postponement and stated that Manuel Perebal-Ajtzalam III and Manuel León-Lares, according to the petitioners the chief protagonists of the violent actions that gave rise to the request for provisional measures, had been arrested and were at the disposal of the competent judicial authority. As for the measures ordered by the President, the Agent reiterated his Government's willingness to fully comply with them and added that he considered that "the measures to protect those persons pursuant to point 1" of the aforementioned order "must be continued." The representative of the Commission, on his part, expressed dissatisfaction with the Government's actions. According to the Commission, the Government had not indicated what type of concrete measures had been specifically taken to protect each of the persons. As for the arrest of the alleged perpetrators, the Commission's representative stated that, in his opinion, the information provided needed to be verified. * 5. * In this case, the Court must decide on the provisional measures requested by