prompt and immediate action be taken by prosecutorial and judicial authorities to order timely and necessary measures aimed at determining the whereabouts of the victim or the place where the victim might be found deprived of liberty.4 Separately, in situations of individuals deprived of liberty - like this one - habeas corpus represents, in the range of indispensable judicial guarantees, the ideal measure for determining the status and the whereabouts of Mr. Natera, as well as for controlling respect for his life and protecting his personal integrity. 9. Of the information provided, there is no indication that the State has responded to the habeas corpus action brought by the relatives of Mr. Natera on November 16, 2009, as they proceeded to combine it with the open criminal investigation. Given the lack of information on the whereabouts of Mr. Natera Balboa, it can be assumed that he still faces a grave risk that his rights to life and personal integrity will be violated. 10. In keeping with the Order of the Court (supra Having Seen 2), the State must immediately adopt the measures necessary to determine the status and whereabouts of Eduardo José Natera Balboa and to protect his life and personal integrity. Likewise, bimonthly reports on this must be submitted, as since these provisional measures were ordered, the Venezuelan State has submitted only a single bimonthly report - on May 26, 2010 - and in the course of the last year it has not submitted any information despite the requests made (supra Having Seen 6). 11. As concerning the implementation of the provisional measures ordered, it is necessary to recall that obligated States must carry out all procedures necessary for the effective protection of the measures’ beneficiaries in keeping with the instructions of the Court. This obligation includes the duty to report to the Tribunal with regard to the implementation of provisional measures according to the deadline and periodicity indicated by the Tribunal.5 12. In this case, the State has not complied with its duty to report in a proper and timely fashion. The Court has established that a State’s failure to comply with its duty to report fully on the provisional measures adopted toward complying with the Court’s orders is especially grave given the juridical nature of these measures, as they seek to prevent irreparable damage to persons facing extremely grave and urgent situations.6 It is extremely urgent that the State submit a full report given that it has not turned in the six bimonthly reports that it was supposed to have 4 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134; Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., supra footnote 2, Considering 20, and Matter of Alvarado Reyes et al., Provisional Measures regarding Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2010, Considering 13. 5 Cf. Matter of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, Considering 12; Matter of Eloisa Barrios et al. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 21, 2011, Considering 23, and Matter of Natera Balboa, Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 1, 2010, Considering 15. 6 Cf. Case of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures regarding Brazil, Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 7, 2004, Considering 16; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human of May 3, 2008, Considering 10, and Matter of the Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó Communities. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, Considering 16. 5