22. On December 20, 2002, the Commission transmitted to the Court the response to the first report by the Government on the provisional measures. The Commission observed that the written submissions of the State "were limited to notifying the various state agencies, and did not translate into effective measures to protect the legal right under reference, which in this case is the right to life and personal integrity of the persons included in this provisional measure." 23. On January 10, 2003, the State sent a response to the Commission’s communication of December 20. In that communication, it reported that the Ministry of the Interior and Justice had instructed the Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP), the Metropolitan Police, and the Libertador Municipal Police to provide the reporters with the required protection. 24. On January 16, 2003, the petitioners sent the Commission their comments on the State’s written submission of January 10. The Commission transmitted its observations to the Court, expressing its concern about the failure to comply with the provisional measures and requesting the Court to summon the parties to a hearing “to assess the State’s compliance with the provisional measures.” The Court granted the hearing in a resolution dated January 24, 2003. 25. On February 17, 2003, a hearing was held before the Court and on February 20, the Court issued a new resolution declaring “that the State has not effectively implemented the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its resolution of November 27, 2002.” It reiterated to the State, inter alia, “the requirement to adopt, without delay, any measures necessary to protect the lives and personal integrity of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe.” It also required the Commission and the State “to take the necessary measures to create an appropriate mechanism to coordinate and supervise the aforementioned measures no later than March 21, 2003.” 26. On February 28, 2003, the State sent a communication with annexes to the Court to report to the Court that “pursuant to the provisional measures, the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, Ombudsman’s Office, and Attorney General’s Office were ordered to carry out the actions necessary to comply with the said measures. The Court has been informed of this.” 27. On March 12, 2003 the State requested an extension for submission of the information on the steps taken by the State to comply with the provisional measures ordered. 28. On March 13, 2003, the Commission sent a letter to the State to set up a meeting between the two parties to establish and activate the coordination and supervision mechanism requested by the Court in its resolution of February 20. 29. On March 13, 2003, the Commission sent the Court the petitioners’ and its own comments on the communication presented by the State on compliance with the provisional measures. The Commission and the petitioners observed that the acts of intimidation of the reporters had continued and that the State had not taken effective protective measures to safeguard their lives and personal integrity. It also reported that “the State had obviously delayed in investigating the reports that were the grounds for the provisional measures.” 30. On March 26, 2003, the Court sent a reminder to the Commission that both it and the State were required to establish a mechanism for coordination and supervision of the provisional measures and that the said mechanism had to be in place by March 21, 2003. The Court also reminded the State of its obligation to submit information on the mechanism in its next report on the provisional measures, which was due on April 28, 2003 and that the Commission had six weeks from its receipt of that report to make comments on it. 4