3 3. To declare that the State failed to comply with the obligation to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the implementation of the measures it had ordered. 4. Should the current situation persist, to inform the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of the State’s failure to comply with the decisions of this Court. 5. To reiterate to the State the requirement that it adopt, forthwith, all necessary measures to protect the lives and safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken. 6. To reiterate to the State the requirement that it allow the petitioners to participate in the planning and implementation of the measures of protection and that, in general, it should inform them on progress regarding the measures decided by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. 7. To reiterate to the State the requirement that it investigate the facts stated in the complaint that gave rise to the [...] measures in order to discover those responsible and punish them. 8. To call upon the State to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights about the measures it ha[d] adopted to comply with the Order by January 7, 2004, at the latest. 9. To call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights any comments it deem[ed] pertinent within 15 days of notification of the State’s report. 10. To call upon the State, subsequent to the report referred to in the eighth operative paragraph, to continue informing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to call upon the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights to present its comments on these reports within six weeks of receiving them. […] 5. The May 4, 2004 Order of the Court, in which it decided 1. To find that the State of Venezuela, because it accepted its jurisdiction, is under the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has the power, inherent to its authority, to oversee compliance with them. 2. To find, likewise, that the State of Venezuela has the obligation to implement the provisional measures ordered by the Court and to submit, according to the schedule set by the Court, the reports ordered, and that the authority of the Court also includes assessment of the reports submitted, and issuing instructions and rulings regarding compliance with its decisions. 3. To reiterate, applying Article 65 of the Convention, that the State failed to comply with the obligation to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the implementation of the measures it ordered. 4. To reiterate to the State that it must comply with the content of [the] December 2, 2003 ruling. In this regard, it must[...] adopt, forthwith, all necessary measures to protect the lives and safety of [...] Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía [and] Pedro Nikken […] 5. To reiterate to the State that it must comply with its obligation to investigate the facts stated in the complaint that gave rise to the [...] measures in order to discover those responsible and punish them.