13 respect to State institutions was understandable,” and that this “attitude of prevention had driven the Peace Community to devise a course of antagonism directed at state institutions […].” While the Constitutional Court highlighted that “the party primarily responsibility for taking measures to generate confidence is the State and not the Peace Community,” it also stated that “[i]n view of the number of victims that the Community has suffered and the difficulties it confronts, one must question whether the course it has chosen is the most appropriate to guarantee the rights and well-being of its members.” 35. Regarding the conditions imposed by the representative and the beneficiaries to resume cooperation, the Court again notes that the usefulness of the provisional measures depends, in large part, on the real possibility that these will be implemented.13 Upon ordering the State to adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries, the Court did not determine the particular protective measures that are required. However, it ordered that said protective measures shall be implemented in an effective manner and, in particular, through the mechanisms of participation that are generated among the beneficiaries or their representatives, and the state authorities charged with the planning and implementation of the same. In this regard, in the framework of the present provisional measures the Court cannot pronounce regarding the representative’s conditions. However, the Tribunal observes that previously it had indicated that the situation of distrust and absence of cooperation between the State and the beneficiaries of these provisional measures should be overcome (supra Having Seen 1, Considering 24). In this regard, the State has expressed that it is positioned for cooperation mechanisms to develop “control and oversight” in agreement with the representative. In turn, the representative has not proposed alternative options that would permit his participation in coordinating the measures that the State must adopt. 36. The Tribunal reiterates that the situation of mistrust and lack of cooperation between the State and the beneficiaries of these provisional measures must be overcome. In this regard, it urges that, at the earliest possible moment, the parties carry out all of the gestures necessary to achieve the pertinent agreements regarding the measures that must continue to be implemented to guarantee the protection of the beneficiaries, all aspects taking into account their particular situation, as has been referred to throughout this Order. The Court stresses the fundamental role that the Inter-American Commission can have in this process, as an organ of the Inter-American System of Protection of Human Rights and as the petitioner of the present provisional measures. The Tribunal considers that the efforts of cooperation must be maintained and that all of the parties should contribute in the best form possible to the implementation of the measures. * * * 37. On repeated occasions, (supra Having Seen 3), the representative requested from the Court “an urgent and extraordinary intervention” before the Colombian State, with the intention of saving the life and integrity of the persons protected by these measures, in particular, “to save the life of E[duar] L[anchero], companion to the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó […], as well as to the members of the Internal Council of the same community: J[esus] E[milio] T[uberquia] and R[einaldo] A[reiza].” In this regard, the representative referred to the alleged death threats, arbitrary detentions, plans to execute 13 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering thirteenth, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010. Considering sixteenth.