know the outcome of the proceeding reported by the State. Regarding the murder of Jorge Antonio Barrios, the representatives argued that the “context of disregard for the provisional measures [in which his death occurred], […] demonstrates and perpetuates an extremely high level of risk for the members of the Barrios family.” They stressed that the murder of Jorge Antonio Barrios “occurred […] a few blocks from the family home of Eloisa Barrios and [from] the site of the murder of Víctor Tomás [Navarro] Barrios which occurred a few months earlier.” In addition, the representatives made certain observations and expressed “some concerns over the details of the investigation”, even though they “positively assess [ed]” the request for three arrest warrants in that investigation. They reported that it is not true that the beneficiary Jorge Antonio Barrios had no fixed abode, and provided an address. In this sense, they indicated that the State’s argument for not offering them measures of protection “lack[s] any factual or legal basis” and, in any case, “would be irrelevant [,] since at the time of his murder, Jorge Antonio was […] with another beneficiary of […] provisional measures.” They noted that the State’s comments “constitute an admission [] that at the time of the death of Jorge Antonio Barrios, the state authorities were not implementing the provisional measures.” 36. As to the implementation of the measures, the representatives argued that “in the past there were sporadic visits to the home of Mrs. Eloisa Barrios; however these were abandoned by officers of the [N]ational [G]uard, who without any explanation stopped visiting her residence” from the end of 2011. They also indicated that when officers of the National Guard appeared they demanded that she “sign different forms [to] justify the supposed continuous visits.” They asserted that the State has “not complied with the agreement made at the hearing of July 27 [2011]”, since in the State Miranda “municipal policemen have been commissioned” to provide protection at the homes of Maritza Barrios and Elbira Barrios, even though these measures should be executed exclusively by the National Guard. Regarding the adjudication of the homes, the representatives argued that this demonstrates “the improvisation [of the] State [which] is still waiting for the execution of a housing plan in which two buildings will be assigned for conversion into shelters”, without predetermining who will live in the homes or coordinating their location with the beneficiaries. In this regard, they argued that they “do not understand how the State can assert that the provision of shelter homes will be resolved through the Great Housing Mission.” 20 In their brief of January 7, 2013, the representatives reported that in November 2012 the State allocated two apartments to Eloisa Barrios and Inés Josefina Barrios, through the National Housing Institute (INAVI), over which they expressed their satisfaction. Taking into account the foregoing, they emphasized the need to guarantee the safety of both beneficiaries in their new homes. They also requested that the State “continue to provide apartments to other members of the family”, in particular to Justina and Luisa del Carmen Barrios, who “are […] defenseless, since the National Guard agents […] have said that the distance between the two houses has made it difficult to comply with the measures of protection.” The representatives emphasized that other apartments are available in the area in which the new homes of Eloisa and Inés Josefina Barrios are located and, in this regard, stated that if the beneficiaries “were in the same area, the same continuous patrols by the National Guard would ensure compliance with the protection measures.” 37. The representatives pointed out that they had made their observations at the various hearings held, which, they argued, “have only served to hear about different offers from the government representatives, without any of these having been formalized.” They also emphasized that, since the hearing held in March 2012, the beneficiaries have not been summoned to another hearing, nor has a timetable been proposed; the representatives consider that hearings should be held quarterly, with the possibility of holding special hearings. In this regard, they expressed their willingness to enter into a dialogue with the respective court, in order to ensure the definitive planning, implementation and monitoring of the measures, given that seven years have elapsed 20 In particular, they indicated that 280 apartments are being built in the State Aragua as part of the government’s Great Housing Mission; however, as of March 2011, there were 28,000 applicants for these. 12