since the first Order for these measures was issued, and “so far, neither the representatives nor the victims have learned of any plan [by the State in this regard].” Furthermore, the representatives referred to the status of the investigations into the deaths of Juan José and Narciso Barrios, and the attack against Nestor Caudi Barrios. Finally, they asked the Court, inter alia, to summon a public hearing on the implementation of these measures. 38. The Commission expressed its “deep concern over the security situation of the beneficiaries […] and the lack of an adequate response by the State.” It indicated that the State “has not provided the planned, coordinated, comprehensive and efficient response demanded by the situation of extreme risk facing members of the Barrios family.” It added that “[t]he reports of the Office of the Ombudsman and of the Office of the Attorney General, can be summarized as official letters and summons to hearings which, far from creating the conditions to make effective progress, have resulted in decisions that cause the greatest concern to the Commission.” In relation to the homes offered by the State, the Commission noted that “this measure has not been implemented either.” It pointed out that the State did not provide the specific information requested by the Inter-American Court “beyond the usual bimonthly implementation reports.” Finally, “given the grave situation of non-compliance with these provisional measures and the continued situation of extreme risk facing the beneficiaries who are still alive”, the Commission requested, inter alia, that a public hearing be convened on the implementation of the present measures. C.2) Considerations of the Court 39. In the first place, the Court appreciates the measures adopted by the State and the steps taken to protect the beneficiaries, including the recent provision of two apartments for two of the beneficiaries of these measures, as well as the start of the investigations into the murders of Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios. Nevertheless, the Court regrets the recent deaths of these last two beneficiaries and considers it an extremely serious matter that these should have occurred, despite the fact that provisional measures are in force. 40. The Court reminds the State that it is not sufficient to adopt certain measures of protection; it requires that these measures and their implementation be effective, so that the risk to those persons whose protection is sought ceases. 21 The Court considers that the murders of Víctor Tomás and Jorge Antonio Barrios demonstrate, once again, the ineffectiveness of the measures adopted thus far by the State to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries. 41. The Court notes with concern that the death of Jorge Antonio Barrios is the ninth killing of a member of the Barrios family, six of whom have died while these provisional measures were in effect and one under the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission: Luis Alberto Barrios, on September 20, 2004; Rigoberto Barrios, between January 19 and 20, 2005; Oscar Barrios, on November 29, 2009; Wilmer José Flores Barrios, on September 1, 2010; Juan Jose Barrios, on May 28, 2011 and, more recently, the deaths of Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios, on June 9 and December 15, 2012, respectively. 22 In addition to the foregoing, in January 2011 there was an attack against the life of Nestor Caudi Barrios, another 21 Cf. Matter of Juan Almonte Herrera et al. Provisional measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the President of the Court of March 24, 2010, Considering para. 16, and Matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011, Considering para. 17. 22 The Judgment issued by the Court in this case established that Messrs. Benito Antonio Barrios and Narciso Barrios were killed by state agents, in 1998 and 2003, respectively, a fact that was not disputed by the State. Consequently, the Court determined the State’s international responsibility for the violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Benito Antonio Barrios and Narciso Barrios. Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 64 and 68. 13