8 19. The Tribunal notes that there is a profound disagreement between the parties regarding the supposed effectiveness that the measures adopted by the State have had for the beneficiaries of the present provisional measures. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that in its written reports, as well as in that submitted during the public hearing (supra Having Seen 5), Colombia, in general, has referred to these measures in detail. However, in contrast, the representative has expressly indicated that said measures, particularly those related to military operations undertaken in the area of the Peace community, have generated an environment of aggression rather than protection. On this point, the Commission has reported that the situation of the beneficiaries has not improved. 20. The Court observes that the State has presented vast information regarding the actions carried out in the area in which the Peace Community is located. In this regard, the Tribunal has received general information that does not only correspond to this area but also to other settlements or towns that, even though they are located within the Municipally of San José de Apartadó, do not refer specifically to the members of the Peace Community. This has been the situation since the last Order handed down by the Tribunal on February 6, 2008. The State has constantly referred to measures implemented “in the general area of the territory of San José de Apartadó,” which, in its opinion, “have generated the security conditions that are required for the inhabitants of this territory to be able to freely exercise their rights.” The information provided by the State does not enable verification regarding which of the measures ordered by the Tribunal have been implemented in favor of the members of the Peace Community specifically, mainly because what is referred to are the events that have given rise to the present provisional measures and their continuance over the course of almost ten years. 21. Nonetheless, the Court takes into consideration that Colombia has also informed that it has carried out other actions to achieve “repopulation” and “economic revitalization” in the “urban sector of San José de Apartadó and its veredas.” The Tribunal reiterates that within the Framework of the present provisional measures, the State’s obligation must center on implementing and informing regarding those measures that are directly linked with the protection of life and integrity of the beneficiaries, that is, of the members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. 22. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court takes note that the State is conscious of the situation in which the members of the Peace community find themselves and that, in that regard, it has adopted the measures that it considers pertinent for their protection. However, the Court does not fail to perceive that despite these measures, there continues to be complaints from the representative of hostage-taking, intimidation, threats, looting, etc. against the beneficiaries. Additionally, the Court takes note that while the present provisional measures have been in effect, certain persons who are protected by these measures have been detained or deprived of life. Moreover, the representative has continually reported that the persons presumed responsible for these acts of violence against the beneficiaries are both members of illegal armed groups and members of the security forces. 23. Within the framework of these provisional measures, the Court has already indicated that to effectuate the rights consecrated in the American Convention, a State Party has the obligation, erga omnes, to protect all persons who are under its jurisdiction. In the Court’s opinion, said general obligation is imposed not only in relation to the power