measures, in addition to the ones already adopted, to protect and guarantee the lives and personal integrity of the other beneficiaries of the measures. 17. Furthermore, the Court recalls that, so far, the State has not provided information on the death threat suffered by Nestor Caudi Barrios on November 25, 2010, and it has limited to provide general information on the actions taken by the state authorities regarding the death of Mr. Wilmer Jose Flores Barrios. 18. This Tribunal recalls that those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Tribunal. These obligations also imply the State's duty to 7 report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court . The duty to inform the Court on the compliance with its decisions constitutes an obligation that requires the effective compliance with the formal presentation of a timely document and the specific, current, truthful and detailed material information upon which said obligation relies8. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the whole status of compliance with the provisional measures in this case9. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of the authority granted by Article 63 (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 27 and 31 of the Rules of Procedure, DECLARES THAT: 1. The death of Mr. Juan Jose Barrios, which occurred on May 28, 2011, evidences, one more time, the non-compliance by the State with the provisional measures ordered, in violation of the terms set forth in article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. AND DECIDES: 1. To rescind the provisional measure in favor of Mr. Juan Jose Barrios, who was a beneficiary of these provisional measures. 2. To maintain all the other provisional measures ordered by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights by means of its Orders of November 23, 2004; 7 See Case of Barrios Altos V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004; considering clause seven. Case of Eloisa Barrios et al, supra note 2; considering clause twenty-four. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment . Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, considering clause twenty-six. 8 See Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of December 2, 2003; considering clause twelve. Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al, supra note 2; considering clause twenty-three. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al V. Peru, supra note 7; considering clause twenty-six. 9 See Case of the “Five Pensioners” V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 17, 2004; considering clause five. Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al, supra note 2; considering clause twenty-three. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al V. Peru, supra note 7; considering clause twenty-six. 6