5 the Commission submitted a copy of a newspaper article written about some testimony concerning possible suspects in the death of Mr. Carpio. 20. On May 14, 2001, the Secretariat reminded the Commission that it had to present observations on the State’s thirty-eighth report. On May 18, the Commission presented its observations on that report, pointing out that whereas Marta Arrivillaga de Carpio had protection both at her workplace and at home, Mrs. Karen Fischer de Carpio’s safety remained uncertain, as the Commission had reported in its previous observations (supra 16). It went on to report that Karen Fischer de Carpio had received telephone threats. 21. On May 14, 2001, the Secretariat reminded Guatemala that its thirty-ninth report was due and should be sent forthwith. On June 5, the State sent the report, which was a repeat of the previous report (supra 17). 22. On July 20, 2001, the Secretariat requested that the Commission forward its observations on the State’s thirty-ninth report without delay. To date those observations have not been sent. 23. On August 14, 2001, the State submitted its fortieth report, which was basically a duplication of its previous two reports (supra 17 and 21). 24. The Court’s August 29, 2001 order, wherein it decided that: 1. The Court will admit and hear autonomous requests, arguments, and evidence from the beneficiaries of provisional measures which it adopts in cases where the application has been presented before it; this will, however, not exempt the Commission from its obligation under the Convention to provide the Court, at its request, with all relevant information. 2. Only the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is authorized to provide information to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases where no application is pending before it. CONSIDERING: 1. That Guatemala is a State party to the American Convention on Human Rights and, on March 9, 1987, recognized this Court’s binding jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that in cases of “extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court may, at the Commission’s request, adopt the provisional measures it deems appropriate in cases not yet submitted to it. 3. That under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, States parties undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms; the State, therefore, is obligated to adopt the measures necessary to preserve the life and personal integrity of any persons whose rights may be threatened. This duty becomes all the more obvious in the case of those persons associated with proceedings before the bodies charged with ensuring observance of the American Convention.