8 4. To reiterate to the State the requirement that it investigate the facts stated in the complaint that gave rise to these measures in order to discover those responsible and punish them. 5. To call upon the State y a the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to take the necessary measures to create an appropriate mechanism to coordinate and monitor the above-mentioned measures by March 22, 2003, at the latest. 6. To call upon the State to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights about the measures that it has adopted in compliance with this Order by March 1, 2003, at the latest. 7. To call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights any comments it deems pertinent, within one week of notification of the State’s report. 8. To call upon the State, subsequent to its communication of March 1, 2003 (supra sixth operative paragraph), to continue informing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, about the provisional measures adopted, and to call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its comments on these reports within six weeks of receiving them. […] 21. The third report of the State of February 28, 2003, and its attachments, with which it sent a copy of “the official letters addressed [...] [to the] Attorney General, the Ombudsman, the Minister of the Interior and Justice, and the Commander General of the Police Armed Forces of the state of Falcón, so that, within the framework of their legal jurisdiction, they should proceed to comply with the Orders” issued by the Court. 22. The communication of the State of March 12, 2003, requesting an extension to present “a report on the measures taken by the Venezuelan State to comply fully with the Orders” issued by the Court with regard to provisional measures. 23. The brief of March 13, 2003, and its attachments, in which the Commission presented its comments on the third report of the State. In this respect, it indicated that, in this report, Venezuela referred to “formal measures taken by the State’s Agent before the domestic authorities,” but did not provide any information about the provisional measures, and this constituted “failure to comply with the express mandate of the Court.” It also observed that the measures of protection provided to Liliana Ortega were insufficient and that those corresponding to the offices of COFAVIC had been suspended. 24. Notes CDH-S/433 and CDH-S/403 of March 26, 2003, in which the Secretariat requested the State and the Commission to forward, in their next communications, the information on compliance with “the fifth operative paragraph of the Order issued by the Court on February 21, 2003” (supra twentieth having seen paragraph), “without prejudice, to forwarding a brief with information in this respect at any time, if they deem this appropriate.” 25. The fourth report of the State of April 25, 2003, and its attachments, in which it indicated that the Attorney General had advised that “[w]ith regard to the investigation of the reported facts that gave rise to these provisional measures, the Office of the Attorney General[,] through the Fundamental Rights Protection Department, had instructed the 24th Prosecutor at the national level of the Office of the Attorney General, Raiza Rodríguez, to take the necessary measures.”