beneficiary protected by these provisional measures. Accordingly, the Court reiterates that all these events represent a serious failure on the part of the State to comply with the provisions of Article 63(2) of the American Convention. 42. The Court recalls that the Judgment delivered in this case it concluded that the State “failed in its duties of protection and prevention regarding five beneficiaries 23 of the protective measures ordered by the organs of the Inter-American System,” who were murdered, or suffered attempts on their lives, despite the application of precautionary or provisional measures. The Court concludes that “the State had full knowledge of the risk facing those members of the Barrios family, both because of the reports and the measures of protection requested and ordered at the domestic level, and by virtue of the precautionary and provisional measures ordered by the bodies of the Inter-American System.” 24 43. The Court points out that the deaths of Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios occurred despite this ruling by the Court. In particular, with regard to Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios, the Court regrets that this is the third son of Mrs. Maritza Barrios to be murdered while the provisional measures were in effect. The Court takes note of the information provided by the State regarding the investigations carried out into these facts; however it also notes that Venezuela did not provide specific information on the measures adopted to avoid or prevent this action. Regarding the death of Jorge Antonio Barrios, the Court observes that the State expressly indicated that, at the time of his death, this beneficiary was not being protected by domestic measures of protection. In its report, Venezuela indicated that this was because the aforementioned beneficiary had no fixed abode; however, the Court takes note of the representatives’ affirmation that this was not true (supra Considering paras. 32 and 35). 25 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court emphasizes that both beneficiaries were murdered while they traveled from one place to another, and that therefore, regardless of their place of residence, the measures adopted by the State were not effective. From the information provided by Venezuela, it is not clear how the mechanism of protection implemented by the State – namely, the surveillance patrols - could have prevented these deaths, or would have been appropriate and sufficient to protect the beneficiaries in these circumstances. The Court considers that the information provided is not sufficient to determine whether the state authorities did everything in their power to protect the beneficiaries or whether, in the circumstances of the moment, they acted in a diligent and timely manner. 44. Furthermore, the Court notes that the murders of Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios share common characteristics with previous attempts against the lives of members of the Barrios family, basically from 2004, as determined by the Court in its Judgment: “these deaths were caused by several shots from a firearm in places near their homes in the community of Guanayen[, regarding which] the State knew the situation of risk facing them, [… since] they were beneficiaries of provisional measures […]” 26. 45. The Court reiterates that, although Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to 23 In particular, Luis Alberto Barrios, Oscar Jose Barrios, Wilmer José Flores Barrios, Nestor Caudi Barrios and Juan Jose Barrios. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, paras. 313 and 124. 24 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, paras. 313 and 124. 25 Although the Court indicated that it is not appropriate to rule on the State’s request to lift the measures in favor of Dalila Ortuño (supra Considering para. 12), it notes that at the domestic hearing held on March 7, 2012, the respective Court of Control ordered the suspension of the protection measures in favor of this person “and her family group”. The beneficiary Jorge Antonio Barrios formed part of Mrs. Dalila Ortuño’s family group. However, the Court does not have sufficient information to know whether this domestic order included said beneficiary. 26 Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 314. 14