7 declared to be victims in the Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment has been met, and that, therefore, the State’s obligations as to these victims will be analyzed within the framework of the supervision of compliance of the Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment. * * * 12. That eight beneficiaries of the present provisional measures were not parties to the Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, and have not had their cases heard by this Tribunal (supra Having Seen paras. 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 20). Given that one of these eight beneficiaries, Anthony Briggs, was executed by the State on July 28, 1999 (supra Having Seen para. 7), the present provisional measures are currently in force in favor of only seven. 13. As to the remaining seven beneficiaries, the Court ordered provisional measures on behalf of Andrew Dottin and Kevin Dial on May 27, 1999, and on behalf of Arnold Ramlogan, Balkissoon Roodal, Beemal Ramnarace, Sheldon Roach, and Takoor Ramcharan on November 26, 2001, “so as not to hinder the processing of [the beneficiaries’] cases before the Inter-American system” for the protection of human rights (supra Having Seen paras. 6, 12, and 20). 14. That the State has not presented any of the periodic reports that were ordered by the Court regarding the measures Trinidad and Tobago has adopted to protect the life and personal integrity of these seven beneficiaries (or of the beneficiaries declared to be victims in the Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case), despite constant requests by the Tribunal regarding this matter (supra Having Seen para. 17). 15. That on September 1, 1998, the State informed that it would “not be consulting with the Commission or the Court any further [on] these matters” (supra Having Seen para. 3). Nonetheless, on September 12, 2005, in response to a request for the submission of the State’s periodic reports, Trinidad and Tobago requested an additional amount of time to present such information. Although the extension of time was granted, the State has not communicated with the Court since, nor has the Tribunal received any comprehensive reports regarding these provisional measures in the past eleven years. 16. That provisional measures are of an exceptional nature, are ordered as a function of the necessities of protection, and, once ordered, should remain in force so long as the Court considers that the basic requirements of extreme gravity and urgency and the prevention of irreparable harm to the rights of those protected by the measures subsist.9 In that regard, the Court notes that it is the responsibility of the State, the Commission, and the beneficiaries or their representatives to submit information or observations on the State’s compliance in carrying out those measures. 9 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Provisional measures regarding Peru. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2001, Considering clause three; Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 26, 2009, Considering clause twenty; and Case of López Álvarez et al., supra note 5, Considering clause ten.