explained that these measures consist of three patrols carried out by members of the National Guard, attached to Regional Command No. 2 of the National Guard, “around the homes of the citizens Justina Barrios, Eloisa Barrios and Inés Josefina [B]arrios”. It stated that those patrols are recorded in the Monitoring Compliance Records, but that the beneficiaries “have refused to sign [them] since November 2011.” Also, in its various reports, the State explained that four hearings had taken place with the representatives and the beneficiaries between February 2011 and March 2012, in order to monitor the implementation of these measures; meetings with three others were convened but had to be postponed. 19 The State argued that, despite these hearings, there is “ignorance [of] the conditions that must be met by the beneficiaries for the effective implementation of the measures”, and mentioned the fact that the beneficiaries had moved away from their homes without informing the State, and their refusal “to sign the visitors’ sheet prepared by military personnel.” Venezuela reported that it had planned to provide the beneficiaries with two homes in the state Aragua in April 2012, through the Great Housing Mission, to serve as a shelter for members of the Barrios family and thereby “contribute to resolving the problem”, but that “the emergency situation [generated] in that regional institution, as a result of the heavy rains, has left a considerable number of citizens victims making it impossible to finally execute that assignation.” Nevertheless, in December 2012 they reported that “meetings are currently taking place […] in order to follow through with the proposed plans.” 34. The State did not refer directly to the implementation of the provisional measures in favor of the members of the Barrios family present or resident in the states of Carabobo and Miranda. However, it forwarded the record of a hearing held on October 25, 2011 before the Criminal Court of First Instance, acting in a supervisory capacity, of the state of Aragua, where the prosecutor in charge, on behalf of the Attorney General’s Office, emphasized that in the State Miranda the jurisdictional bodies agreed that the measures would be executed by the Municipal Police, and indicated that “there is no reason [why] this decision should call into question those police organs, which are in no way related to the events which occurred in the state of Aragua to the detriment [of] the Barrios family.” The State also forwarded information on the criminal proceedings against Víctor Daniel Cabrera Barrios begun on December 16, 2011. It also provided a report by the Office of the Ombudsman on, inter alia, the monitoring by that state agency of the implementation of the provisional measures and the communications sent to the Governor’s Office of the state of Aragua by the supervisor of the Victims’ Assistance Unit in relation to the apartments to be provided to the Barrios family, without obtaining a response. The State also provided a report from the Attorney General’s Office on the investigation into the cases of Narciso Barrios, Benito Antonio Barrios and Nestor Caudi Barrios. 35. Regarding the information provided by the State on the deaths of Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios, the representatives emphasized that these facts “highlight the State’s continued failure to comply with the provisional measures.” As to the procedures carried out in connection with the death of Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios (supra Considering para. 32), they emphasized that “more than six months after [his] death […], the process remains in the investigation phase”, without anyone being prosecuted. They further indicated that they do not 18 In this regard, the State provided a report prepared by the Office of the Ombudsman, in which it monitors compliance with these measures, based on information received from the security unit in charge of carrying out the patrols, and from the Attorney General’s Office, from August 2011 until May 2012. 19 According to the information provided, hearings took place on February 8, July 27 and October 25, 2011 and March 7, 2012. The State also reported that hearings were convened for August 31, September 21 and November 24, 2011, but did not take place because of the “victims’ failure to appear”; and that in the case of the hearing convened for November 24, 2011, because of the “failure to appear of the victims [,] the Commander of the 21st Detachment of the National Guard […] and the [r]epresentative of the v[i]ctims”. In this regard, the representatives pointed out that on September 21, 2011 a hearing was convened, but after waiting for an hour “without the secretary appearing in the court to inform them of the reasons for the delay, in order not to wait in vain, the representative and the victim decided to leave the Court.” 11