guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, whenever a person is a beneficiary of provisional measures this general duty is reinforced regarding that individual, and therefore there must be a special duty of care. 27 Failure to fulfill these obligations can imply the international responsibility of the State. 28 46. This Court finds that the State has not properly undertaken the implementation, execution and monitoring of the measures of protection in favor of members of the Barrios family, which has placed them in a position of serious vulnerability. In particular, this Court considers that the deaths of two more beneficiaries, Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios, denote the lack of effective implementation of these provisional measures. This necessarily implies that the State has not complied with the measures ordered by the Court, whose essential purpose is to effectively protect and preserve the life and personal integrity of members of the Barrios family. 29 47. In the second place, with regard to the implementation of the provisional measures in favor of the other beneficiaries, the Court takes note of the information provided by the State, according to which surveillance patrols continue to be implemented at the homes of three of the beneficiaries of these measures. However, it emphasizes that, according to the representatives, these patrols were carried out sporadically and were suspended at the end of 2011, and therefore are not being carried out at present. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that in her sworn statement Orismar Carolina Alzul García indicated that she “do[es] not recall the last time that the [N]ational [G]uard visited her mother’s house where she lives”. Moreover, at the hearing held on October 25, 2011, the prosecutor indicated that he would contact the 21st Detachment of the National Guard to convey the representatives’ comments “that [G]uard officers make sporadic visits to the home of Mrs. Maritza Barrios but require her to sign up to 9 pages of records of their visits”. However, no information was provided on the results of that procedure. 48. The Court recalls that in its Order of July 5, 2011 it specifically required the State to provide immediate and effective security for each of the beneficiaries of the measures, by means of permanent guard measures, as well as to the homes of Maritza Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García. However, the Court considers that, based on the information provided by the parties (supra Considering para. 47), it is not clear that security was being provided to each of the beneficiaries or to the homes of Maritza Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García. Moreover, the Court notes that no relevant information has been provided regarding the implementation of the measures for those beneficiaries who do not live in the state of Aragua. 49. The Court also recalls that in its Judgment in this case it considered that the domestic measure of protection, consisting exclusively of sporadic patrols around the homes of some members of the Barrios family, were not sufficient and effective to mitigate the risk suffered by the victims and adequately prevent future acts of violence 30, inasmuch as they were not sufficient to prevent the attacks against the life of five members of the Barrios family. 27 Cf. Case of Velasquez Rodríguez. Provisional Measures regarding Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering para. 3, and Case of Eloisa Barrios et al. Order of the Court of July 5, 2011, Considering para. 12. 28 Cf. Case of Hillaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 196 to 200, and Matter of the Capital El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of September 6, 2012, Considering para. 3. 29 Cf. Case of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Order of the Court of February 7, 2006, Considering para. 21, and Matter of the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison). Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of September 6, 2012, Considering para. 16. 30 Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 130. 15