of the protective measures are the ones who must furnish the information to prepare them". Moreover, they emphasized that the State “must allocate the funds for the hiring of specialized personnel in order to enforce the protective measures, just as in the development of all logistics”. 11. The Court notes that during the enforcement of the provisional measures, it was announced the deaths of Oscar Barrios, on November 28, 2009; Rigoberto Barrios, on January 19, 2005; Wilmer Jose Flores Barrios, on September 1, 2010; and recently, Juan Jose Barrios, on May 28, 2011, three months after the adoption of the Court’s Order of February 21, 2011. Previously, during the enforcement of the precautionary measures, Luis Alberto Barrios died on September 20, 2004. In addition, the Tribunal notes that one month after the issuance of the Court's Order of November 25, 2010, Nestor Caudí Barrios, another beneficiary of the provisional measures, suffered a death threat. In view of the above, the Court recalls that the foregoing represents a grave non-compliance by the State with the terms set forth in article 63.2 of the American Convention. 12. In this respect, even though Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes the general obligations of States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined therein and to ensure their free and full exercise to all people subject to their jurisdiction, when a citizen is a beneficiary of provisional measures, this duty is reinforced in respect to such person and therefore, the State has a particular 6 obligation to protect him or her , which did not happen in the instant case. 13. This Court notes that the State has not duly addressed the implementation, enforcement and supervision of the protective measures in favor of the members of the Barrios family, which place them in a serious vulnerable position. 14. The Court reiterates that the State must immediately and effectively adopt all necessary and special measures to protect and guarantee the lives and personal integrity of the beneficiaries of these measures, according to the terms set forth in the Orders issued by the Tribunal on November 25, 2010 and February 21, 2011, in order to eradicate the sources of risk and avoid the repetition of facts as the ones described herein. C) On the duty to present information 15. By means of the Secretariat's communication of April 5, 2011 (supra Having Seen clause 2), the Court recalled the State to present the report required by the Tribunal by means of the Order of February 21, 2011, regarding "all the necessary and special measures it has adopted to prevent attacks on the lives and personal integrity of the other beneficiaries of these provisional measures”, and said information must contain “an evaluation of the situations of risk faced by each of the beneficiaries, as well as a description of the specific, adequate, and sufficient protective measures for each of them”. However, to date, the State has not forwarded said information even tough the time limit established for the submission of such report expired on March 22, 2011. 16. The Tribunal considers that the report forwarded by the State on June 10, 2011, related to the death of Juan Jose Barrios, does not contain sufficient information to allow the Court evaluate whether the state authorities had fully complied with the duty to adopt and implement all the necessary and special 6 See Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures Regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, considering clause three; Matter of A.J. et al. Provisional Measures regarding Haiti. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011; considering clause sixteen; Case of Alvarado Reyes et al, supra note 1; considering clause twenty-four. 5