threaten the life or the personal integrity of the beneficiaries of these provisional measures, and to include the information requested in [the said] Order. Furthermore, the said report must contain a risk assessment for each beneficiary, as well as the definition of specific, adequate and sufficient measures and means of protection for each of them. 7. To reiterate to the State that it must continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights every two months on the provisional measures adopted, and to require the beneficiaries of these measures or their representatives to submit their observations within four weeks of notification of the reports of the State, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on these reports of the State within six weeks of receiving them. 2. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of April 15, 2013, advising that “the public hearing convened in the […] second operative paragraph of the Order of February 13, 2013, w[ould] be held on May 29, 2013.” 3. The communications of April 15 and 26, 2013, in which the State twice requested extensions of the time frame to present the report required in the Order of the Court of February 13, 2013. 4. The notes of the Secretariat of April 12 and 30, 2013, granting the extensions requested by the State. 5. The communications of May 19 and 21, 2013, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) and the representatives of the beneficiaries (hereinafter “the representatives”) informed the Court of the presumed murder of Roni David Barrios Alzul,1 beneficiary of these provisional measures. 6. The notes of the Secretariat of May 21, 2013, in which the President of the Court (hereinafter also “the President”) asked the State to present information on the presumed murder of the said beneficiary, as well as on the measures adopted in this regard, at the public hearing of May 29, 2013. The President also advised the representatives that they could present any pertinent information or observations during this hearing. 7. The arguments of the parties and of the Commission during the public hearing on these provisional measures held at the seat of the Court on May 29, 2013.2 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since August 9, 1977, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 1 In its brief, the Commission referred to the death of “Roniel David Barrios Alzul.” For their part, the representatives referred to the death of “Roni David Barrios Alzul,” while, in the annexes presented, he is identified as “Ronis David Barrios Alzul.” Based on the information provided during the public hearing, the Court understands that the correct name of the deceased beneficiary is “Roni David Barrios Alzul”. 2 There appeared at this hearing: for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Elizabeth AbiMershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Adviser; in representation of the beneficiaries: Eloisa Barrios, beneficiary; Luis Aguilera, Commission from Aragua state, and Francisco Quintana, CEJIL, and for the State of Venezuela: Germán Saltrón Negretti, State Agent for Human Rights before the Inter-American and International System , and Nestor Luís Castellano Molero, Fourth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service before the Cassation Chambers and the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 2