5 offices of the Coordinadora Nacional de Viudas de Guatemala (Office of the Coordinator of Guatemalan Widows, hereinafter “CONAVIGUA”) on June 2, 2000. Specific measures: on the situation of the former patrolmen 14. The State’s sixteenth and seventeenth reports made no reference to the apprehension of the former patrolmen. The Commission’s comments on those reports, submitted on March 22 and June 29, 2000, where it pointed out that twelve former patrolmen were still at large and that “no steps to apprehend” them had been taken. The State’s eighteenth report, dated July 31, 2000, wherein it reported on the June 6, 2000 meeting where COPREDEH officials again urged the Director General of National Police that the former patrolmen had to be apprehended. The State also reported that the protective measures were being carried out as “highly covert” operations in order to achieve their objective. In its nineteenth and twentieth reports, the State made no reference to the measures taken in this connection. 15. The Commission’s comments on the eighteenth report, the public hearing held on March 13, 2001, and the Commission’s comments on the State’s twenty-first report, wherein the Commission underscored the urgency of apprehending these persons. In its comments on the twenty-first report, the Commission reported that the beneficiaries of the provisional measures had been threatened by relatives of the former patrolmen. They were told that if the former patrolmen were taken into custody again, the patrolmen’s relatives would take reprisals, including possibly poisoning the Colotenango municipal water supply. At that public hearing, the State said that it was working with MINUGUA to map out strategies to apprehend the former patrolmen. 16. The July 19, 2001 note from the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) where it reminded the Commission that it had not submitted comments on the State’s nineteenth and twentieth reports. 17. The Secretariat’s July 20, 2001 note wherein Guatemala was reminded to submit its twenty-second report. As of the date of this Order, that document had not been received. 18. The Court’s August 29, 2001 Decision wherein it determined that it: 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 during the processing of measures ordered by the Court in cases where no application is pending before it. CONSIDERING: