2 2005, referring to operative paragraph number three of the Order issued by the Court on March 15, 2005, whereby Colombia was granted a 30-day period to submit the report and requested to include in such report the information that should have been provided on February 16, 2005. 7. The notes of the State of April 22 and May 13, 2005, requesting a 20-day extension to submit the report on the provisional measures ordered in operative paragraph number three of the Order issued by the Court on March 15, 2005. The notes of the Secretariat of April 25 and May 16, 2005, whereby, following the President’s instructions, the State was granted the requested extensions until May 12 and 27, 2005 respectively. 8. The communication by the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter “the representatives”) of June 7, 2005, in which they stated, inter alia, that: a) the State, during 2004, repeatedly failed to comply with the obligation to submit periodic reports, and b) one of the most important aspects for the implementation of the measures has been the follow-up mechanism between the beneficiaries, their representatives and the different official agencies involved. However, the State shattered all efforts at agreement when it established a police post in San José during the first week of April, 2005. 9. The communication of the State of June 9, 2005, whereby, following the President’s orders, the State was required to submit, without delay, the relevant State report in response to the provisions laid out in operative paragraph number three of the Order of the Court issued on March 15, 2005, which was due on May 27, 2005. 10. The note of the State, received on June 16, 2005, requesting a fifteen-day extension therefrom to submit the relevant report on the provisional measures. The communication of the Secretariat of June 16, 2005, stating that the period to submit such report, including the two extensions granted, expired on May 27, 2005. Therefore, following the President’s directions, the State was informed that the requested extension had been denied and was required to submit, as soon as possible, the report requested by the Court in the aforesaid Order of March 15, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 5). 11. The note of the Secretariat of July 4, 2005, whereby, following the President's instructions, the State was required once again to submit the report requested by the Court in the aforesaid Order of March 15, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No.5). 12. The report of the State, received on July 20, 2005, in which the State referred to the general situation of San José de Apartadó and reiterated the information provided during the public hearing held on March 14, 2005. In addition, the State reported, inter alia, that: a) on August 11, 2004 a device exploded in the house of leader Luis Eduardo Guerra-Guerra in San José de Apartadó, and the Community requested the State to investigate the incident. The Public Prosecutor’s Office established a judicial commission, whose members arrived in San José de Apartadó on August 19, 2004 and conducted an inspection of the scene, took testimonies and gathered evidence. Currently, the investigation is in the preliminary stage;