5 No. 1 and 2 of the Court’s Order of July 6, 2006. This notwithstanding, the representatives observe that the measures adopted would not be effective or adequate to counter the peril and insecurity they allege in their numerous submissions (supra Having Seen clause No. 7). 8. That, in particular, no information has been reported to the Court on the effective measures adopted by the State to protect beneficiaries Tamara Bolívar, Patricia Oliva, Gerardo Colín and Walter Mansilla (infra Considering clause No. 10). It follows from the information provided by the representatives that these persons would have been required by the State to request protection measures from the competent national authorities, so the measures are not yet effective. Neither does the Court have precise information on the protection afforded to the granddaughters of María Leontina Millacura (i.e., Evelyn Caba and Ivana Torres), which must consist of “everything, which is required for the girls to freely attend school.” In addition, according to the representatives, the Homeland Department would have denied such protection, as it “does not have suitable staff with experience in tasks of this kind, as they are not provided for in the law governing the functions of that force.” 9. That in view of the foregoing, it is necessary that the State take all such steps as are appropriate for the protection measures set forth in the Court’s Order of July 6, 2006 to be carried out immediately, diligently and effectively, in order to protect the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries. In this connection, the State should assess the risk run by each of the beneficiaries and debrief the Court on the specific measures implemented for each of them with regard to such risk. The Court repeats that the State must allow the beneficiaries to take part in the planning and implementation of the measures (supra Having Seen clause no. 3, operating paragraph No. 4 of the Order of July 6, 2006). Furthermore, it should be noted that the provision contained in Article 63(2) of the Convention gives binding effect to the State’s order adopting provisional measures as directed by this Court, inasmuch as, under the basic principle of the State’s responsibility as sustained by international case law, the States must perform their conventional obligations in good faith (i.e., pacta sunt servanda). * * * 10. That in their submission of comments of June 14, 2007 (supra Having Seen Clause No. 7) the representatives reported the death of beneficiary Walter Mansilla. In that regard, they stated that “[o]n June 5, 2007, María Leontina was informed that Walter was in the morgue of the Comodoro Rivadavia Regional Hospital, labeled as ‘NN’. Representative Verónica [Heredia] went to the Hospital on June 6, where she was told that on May 28 an unidentified person had been admitted, the record being signed by Dr. PérezCerra, a Chubut Police physician. Ms Silvia [de los Santos] was told off-therecord that Walter was admitted to the Hospital on June 1, 2007, that his body would have been transferred by Chubut Police staff, and that his death had been due to a row.