-6- 7. That, in particular and as previously held by the Court, it is the State’s responsibility to adopt security measures to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction,4 which duty becomes even more obvious in connection with those who are involved in proceedings carried out before the bodies supervising compliance with the American Convention.5 8. That in paragraph 280 of the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs of July 5, 2004, the Court ruled that the State is to specifically guarantee the life, safety and security of those who testified before the Tribunal and their families, providing them with the necessary protection from any person, taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the instant case and the fact that most of the victims’ next of kin who testified before the Tribunal and a notary public expressed their fear of retaliation. 9. That, on September 3, 2004, the Tribunal issued an Order ruling on the request for provisional measures submitted by the Inter-American Commission in the Case of 19 Tradesmen. Through such Order, the Court ratified the July 30, 2004 Order of the President of the Court and called upon Colombia to: a) b) keep the necessary measures in place to protect the rights to life and humane treatment of Sandra Belinda Montero-Fuentes and her son Juan Manuel AyalaMontero; and immediately adopt such measures as may be required in order to protect the rights to life and humane treatment of María Paola Casanova-Montero, the 7year old daughter of Sandra Belinda Montero-Fuentes. 10. That on April 21, 2004, during his testimony before the Court at the public hearing on the merits and possible reparations and costs in this case, witness Salomón Flórez-Contreras, the brother of victim Antonio Flórez-Contreras, expressed his fears over testifying before the Tribunal. 11. That Mr. Luis José Pundor-Quintero and Ana Diva Quintero-Quintero de Pundor are, respectively, the brother and mother of victim Israel Pundor-Quintero. 12. That through the Judgment of July 5, 2004, when ordering reparations for the proven violations, the Court ruled, inter alia, that the State was required to pay American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, Considering clause No. 5; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering clause No. 5. Cf. Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, Considering clause No. 9; Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering clause No. 7; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering clause No. 6. 4 5 Cf. Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, Considering clause No. 4; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, Considering clause No. 4; and Matter of Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2005, Considering clause No. 5.