54. Likewise, the Court considers it essential to remind the State of its Orders of November 25, 2010, February 21 and July 5, 2011, regarding the need to conduct a comprehensive study or assessment of the situation of risk facing each of the beneficiaries, and to provide the Court with detailed and complete information on the results, with the supporting documentation, as well the specific, adequate and sufficient measures and means of protection to be implemented as a result of those assessments. To this end, the beneficiaries and their representatives shall offer their full cooperation to the State and shall facilitate the aforementioned assessments. 55. Thirdly, with regard to the beneficiaries’ participation in the planning and implementation of these measures, the Court takes note of the information forwarded by the State regarding the hearings before a Court of Control in the state of Aragua, in order to monitor compliance. However, it emphasizes that the Court has not received any information since March 2012 in this regard. The Court recalls that the State should take appropriate steps to ensure that the provisional measures established in this Order are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiaries or their representatives, so that they can be provided in a diligent and effective manner. 56. Also, the Court considers it important that the beneficiaries and their representatives cooperate in order to ensure an effective implementation of the security measures 32, and that the state authorities establish clear and direct means of communication with the beneficiaries, so as to foster the necessary confidence for their adequate protection. The Court stresses that the active participation of the State, and particularly of the representatives, is essential to coordinate the implementation of the provisional measures in this matter. Such coordination implies that the parties must propose and agree upon measures, in case one of them considers that the existing ones are not adequate. Accordingly, the Court calls on the State to respond to the representatives’ proposal to hold quarterly hearings to monitor compliance with these measures, within the term established in the operative part of this Order. 57. This Court has also stated that the analysis of the effectiveness of the investigations corresponds to the examination of the merits of the case. 33 Consequently, it calls on the representatives and the State to ensure that the information submitted regarding the investigation of the facts related to these provisional measures (supra Considering paras. 34 and 37) is forwarded to the Court in the file on monitoring compliance with the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs issued on November 24, 2011 in the case Barrios Family v. Venezuela. D) Regarding the duty to present information 58. In its Order of July 5, 2011 the Court required the State to submit specific information on the measures adopted in compliance with said Order no later than August 27, 2011. However, the Court notes that this report was not submitted until February 14, 2012 and that it did not contain the detailed and complete information requested by the Court. 59. Furthermore, in that Order the State was also required to submit bimonthly reports in the context of these provisional measures, which it has not submitted on a regular basis. Although the Court acknowledges that the State has responded to the requests for specific information on the acts of violence or alleged harassment reported by the representatives (supra Having Seen 7), it 32 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Mapiripán. Provisional measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of September 2, 2010, Considering para. 20, and Matter Perez Torres et al. (“Cotton Field”). Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of June 30, 2011, Considering para. 12. 33 Cf. Matter of Pilar Noriega García et al. Provisional measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Court of February 6, 2008, Considering para. 14, and Matter Alvarado Reyes et al., Considering para. 16. 17