Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008 Provisional Measures with regard to the Republic of Colombia Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana HAVING SEEN: 1. The Judgments on the merits, and reparations and costs rendered in the case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Court”, “the Inter-American Court” or “the Tribunal”) on December 8, 1995, and January 29, 1997. 2. The Orders of the Inter-American Court on provisional measures of December 7, 1994; January 31, 1997; April 16, 1997; September 19, 1997; June 3, 1999 and July 4, 2006. Through the latter order, the Court decided: […] 2. To call upon the State to maintain and adopt any measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of María Nodelia Parra and Gonzalo Arias-Alturo. […] 3. Reports No. 43 to 45 of the State of Colombia (hereinafter, “the State” or “Colombia”) filed from August 17, 2006, to September 4, 2007, and the additional reports of September 15, 2006, and October 9, 2007, whereby the State disclosed the protection measures adopted in relation to the beneficiaries and reported on the investigation of the events that resulted in the adoption of the provisional measures. 4. The briefs filed by the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures (hereinafter, “the representatives”) on September 26 and October 24, 2006; July 3 and November 13, 2007, whereby they submitted their comments to the reports of the State. 5. The briefs of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) of October 19, 2006; July 5, 2007; August 8, 2007 and January 8, 2008, whereby they submitted their comments on the information provided by the State. 6. The Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of December 10, 2007, whereby it called the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the beneficiaries to a hearing in order to gather information on: i) the implementation of the provisional measures ordered in the instant case, and ii) the ongoing situation of extreme gravity and urgency requiring to avoid irreparable harm that resulted in the adoption of such measures in favor of the beneficiaries, with the aim of evaluating the need to keep them in full force.