4 has understood that the threats have ceased and, therefore, has disregarded the case.” Finally, he pointed out that though “no further threats have been posed against the life or physical integrity of Carlos Nieto-[Palma] and his next of kin, it is also true that the grave threats that were initially made against them still make them fear for their safety.” 5. The communication of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of February 4, 2005, whereby, on instructions from the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), it requested the State to submit forthwith the reports on the provisional measures of November 19, 2004 and January 19, 2005, pursuant to Order of the Court of July 9, 2004 (supra Having Seen clause 1). 6. The briefs submitted by the Inter-American Commission on December 13, 2004; August 17, and October 21, 2005; and January 26, March 27, and May 19, 2006; whereby, it argued, inter alia, that: a) the child John Carmelo Laicono-Nieto and Eva Teresa Nieto-Palma returned to “their house in the city of Boca Ratón, State of Florida, United States of America, [whereby] such beneficiaries will not be included in its future observations […].” Furthermore, it considered that “in case they [return] to Venezuela, their representatives shall promptly inform the Court in order to resume compliance with any measures that may have been adopted for their protection.” Furthermore, it pointed out that the investigation steps taken by the State “do not comply with a standard, set by the Court, which allows determining that the risk factors which were duly established thereby have ceased or been disregarded a result of the investigation conducted.” It notes that no further information has been submitted for the consideration of the Court, and that from the information which has been submitted it cannot be derived that coordination measures have been adopted or information is provided to the beneficiary; b) it notes with increasing concern that in its periodic reports, the State claimed to be awaiting for the authorities hearing the case to inform about “the outcome of the investigation, so that it is possible to determine whether there are risk factors which support the continuance or discontinuance of the protection measures afforded” to the beneficiary. The Commission considered it relevant to reaffirm that no domestic proceeding may aim at replacing the jurisdiction of the Court to decide on the “continuance or discontinuance” of such measures; c) it notes that there is a controversy between the State and the beneficiary regarding the duty to afford protection. The State informed that ��it cannot implement the protection measures effectively due to the lack of cooperation of the beneficiary to arrange a meeting or answer to the summonses served by the Prosecutor [in charge of the] case. For his part, the beneficiary, “stat[ed] that the foregoing information is false [and] claims to have made statements at the Office of the Public Prosecutor on two occasions;” d) the information supplied by the beneficiary is a cause for concern, as he deems that the control mechanism implemented by the State is intimidating. Therefore, the Commission deemed that the State must plan the protection measures jointly with the beneficiary and that it is relevant to maintain the provisional measures. It further pointed out that it is necessary to request the