3 2. To declare that the State had failed to comply with the obligation imposed by Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 3. To declare that the State had failed to comply with the obligation to inform the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights about the implementation of the provisional measures ordered by the Court. 4. To inform the General Assembly of the Organization of American States should the current situation persist, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning a State’s failure to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 5. To reiterate to the State the requirement to adopt, forthwith, all necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Lysias Fleury. 6. To reiterate to the State the requirement that it investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of the provisional measures, in order to identify those responsible and impose the corresponding sanctions. 7. To reiterate to the State the requirement that it allow the beneficiary of the measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, to keep him informed about progress in the execution of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 8. To require the State to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights about the provisional measures adopted to comply with this order by January 20, 2004, at the latest. 9. To require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present any observations it deems pertinent to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within two weeks of notification of the State’s report 10. To require the State, following the communication described in the eighth operative paragraph, to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on these State reports within six weeks of their notification. […] 11. The notes of the Secretariat of January 7 and 12, 2004, with which it forwarded to the Commission and to the State a copy of the order of the Court of November 25, 2003, reforming Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter, “the Rules of Procedure”), in order to offer the beneficiaries of provisional measures the opportunity “to address their comments on the report made by the State directly to the Court.” In this regard, it requested the Commission to forward a copy of this note and the said order to Lysias Fleury and his representatives and asked that it indicate their physical address and post box, telephone, and fax numbers. 12. The communications of the State of January 26 and February 3, 2004, received by the Secretariat on March 11, 2004, advising that it had forwarded a copy of the Rules of Procedure to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security “for the pertinent effects,” and indicating that it “had adopted specific measures to protect the life and personal integrity” of Lysias Fleury, which would be communicated in a repot that it would submit to the Court within one month, pursuant to the Court’s order. 13. The note of the Secretariat of May 20, 2004, in which, on the instructions of the Court in plenary session, it reminded the State of its obligation to submit a report on any provisional measures it had adopted in compliance with the Court’s order of December 2, 2003, every two months, and requested it to submit the report on the said measures by June 1, 2004, at the latest. 14. The notes of the Secretariat of July 26, 2005, advising that it not received any information on the said measures since the State’s communication of March 11, 2004