8 7. That, pursuant to the Orders of the Court (supra Having Seen clauses No. 1, 2 and 3), the State is required to: adopt measures to protect the life, physical integrity and freedom of expression of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez; investigate the facts that led to the adoption of the provisional measures in order to identify and punish the perpetrators; involve the beneficiaries or their representatives in the planning and implementation of the measures of protection and keep them current on any progress made regarding the measures ordered by the Court; and provide the Court with the required reports. 8. That, as far as the implementation of any provisional measures that may have been ordered is concerned, the respondent States are required to adopt all steps required for the effective protection of the measures’ beneficiaries, further to the instructions of the Court. This obligation includes the duty to report to the Tribunal, as often as the Tribunal may indicate, on the implementation of such provisional measures. 9. That the duty to report to the Tribunal is not met through the mere formal submission of a document to the Court, but is a dual obligation the effective fulfillment of which calls for the formal submission of a document within the period prescribed therefor, and a material reference that is specific, accurate, current and detailed, to the issues around which such obligation revolves.3 10. That the State has failed to submit a report every two months concerning compliance with the provisional measures, pursuant to the Orders that the Court has issued in the instant case (supra Having Seen clauses No. 1 and 2). Accordingly, after the Tribunal’s Order of May 4, 2004 (supra Having Seen clause No. 3), the State has submitted only four reports on compliance with the provisional measures (supra Having Seen clauses No. 4, 9, 13 and 17). Furthermore, the State has merely rebutted the briefs submitted by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives, without providing specific, current information regarding the measures actually adopted to protect the life, physical integrity and freedom of expression of the beneficiaries. * 11. That the hearing held on April 7, 2006 before the Forty-Second Investigating Lower Court for the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area constitutes a positive step towards reaching an agreement on the design and implementation of the measures of protection ordered by the Court, on the understanding that it would be inadmissible to subject the mechanism provided for in Rights of February 6, 2006, Considering clause No. 7; Matter of Luisiana Rios et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión –RCTV-). Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, Considering clause No. 23. 3 Cf. Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Corbaradó. supra note 2, Considering clause No. 16; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. supra note 2, Considering clause No. 18; Matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. supra note 2, Considering clause No. 17.