3 same report also indicates that the person responsible for these acts was punished in accordance with the prison regulations in force in Ecuador. 5. That there are therefore two contradictory versions of the manner in which the alleged events occurred, and the Court has no further information at its disposal until the Government presents its first report in accordance with the second paragraph of the operative part of the April 12, 1996 Order of the President of the Court. However, States are obliged to protect the lives and physical integrity of their citizens in any circumstance, all the more so in this specific case in which the statements of Mr. SuárezRosero and Mrs. Ramadán de Suárez have been presented to the Court as part of the Commission's stock of evidence in a judicial process to determine whether or not the human rights enshrined in the American Convention have been violated by a State Party. This circumstance requires the Government to guarantee that neither witnesses nor their families shall be the victims of any sort of reprisal on account of their testimony to this Court. 6. The certified copy of written communication No. 861-CSQ-P-96 of the President of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito and the ruling of April 16, 1996, at 10:00 a.m., of the First Chamber of that Court, "whereby [the Government communicated that] the order had been given for Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero's release." Those documents were presented by the Government of the Republic of Ecuador at the Secretariat of the Court on May 29, 1996. 7. The petition presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on June 10, 1996, whereby it informed the Court that "the safety of Mr. Suárez and his family does not appear to be threatened at this time" and, as a consequence, also communicated its decision to "desist from the request for provisional measures to protect the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Suárez and his relatives ... reserving the right to make a further request for provisional measures should there be a change of circumstances." The Commission also noted that the decision to desist from the above-mentioned request was taken "without prejudice to the hearing of the case, in regard to which it requests the Honor-able Court to proceed with it." CONSIDERING: 1. That Ecuador is a State Party to the American Convention, Article 1(1) of which sets forth the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in that treaty and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, and that on July 24, 1984 Ecuador accepted the competence of this Court pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention. 2. That, in the instant case, the Inter-American Commission recently informed the Court that it was desisting from its requests for provisional measures on the grounds that the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency that had inspired the adoption of urgent measures no longer existed, a fact demonstrated by the release of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero by the Government of Ecuador, and that there was currently no risk to the safety of Mr. Suárez-Rosero and his family. 3. The reasons that led the President to order urgent measures in this case had ceased to exist. NOW, THEREFORE: