7 communications and advised that it had forwarded a copy of the Rules of Procedure to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security. 8. That, as decided in the order of December 2, 2003 (supra having seen paragraph 10), the Court required the State, inter alia, to implement the measures ordered in favor of Lysias Fleury and, after declaring that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to inform the Court about the implementation of these measures, that it should submit a first report, following which it should continue reporting every two months. The Court has already established that the State has the obligation to provide sufficient information about the measures adopted.5 In addition, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has reiterated that States Parties must provide the information that the Court requests of them in a timely fashion so that the Court may comply fully with the obligation to provide information to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments.6 As the Court has indicated, this obligation to provide information is not fulfilled only by the formal presentation of a document to the Court, but constitutes an obligation of a dual nature that, to be fulfilled effectively, requires the formal presentation of a document within the specific time frame, and with specific, true, current and detailed reference to the issues to which this obligation relates.7 9. That, today, more than four years have elapsed and the State has not presented the reports required by the Court and by its President, on any measures it may have adopted in compliance with the provisional measures ordered, or any information relevant to an assessment of the pertinence of maintaining them in force, even though it has been asked to submit this on numerous occasions. The State’s failure to submit these reports, together with the inadequate information provided by the Commission and the representatives, have made it difficult, or even impossible, to determine the actual situation of the beneficiary of the measures, which has given rise to a situation of uncertainty for most of the time the provisional measures were in force, and this is incompatible with the preventive and protective nature of provisional measures.8 As the Court has indicated, a State’s failure to comply with its obligation to inform the Court about the implementation of the measures ordered is particularly grave, given the juridical nature of these measures.9 In this case, the Court reiterates that the State has failed to comply with the obligation imposed by Article 5 Cf. Matter of Colotenango, Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, ninth considering paragraph; Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, fifteenth and sixteenth considering paragraphs; Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, sixteenth and seventeenth considering paragraphs, y Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional measures. Order of February 2, 2006, sixteenth considering paragraph. 6 General Assembly, Order AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) approved in the fourth plenary session held on June 5, 2007, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 7 Cf., inter alia, Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó, supra note 5, sixteenth considering paragraph; Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión – RCTV). Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, seventeenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Luis Uzcátegui. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, twelfth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Matter of Colotenango. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, considering paragraph 8. 9 Cf., inter alia, Matter of the Mendoza Prisons, supra note 7, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó, supra note 5, sixteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, supra note 3, twelfth considering paragraph, and Matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 15, 2005, eleventh considering paragraph.