3 received, and lastly, that he did not know of the fact that the Court had ordered provisional measures to protect the Community. b) That despite the agreement reached on October 6, 1998, between the representatives of the State, the petitioners, and the Relator of the Commission, the State continued to meet with the Community without informing the petitioners; that the petitioners are prepared to collaborate with the State for the purpose of implementing the measures in the most effective manner; that the creation of a Follow-up Committee that permits the participation of the petitioners to attain this purpose is urgent; that the petitioners submit the testimony of a member of the indigenous community who is a member of the reservation, who stated that Clemente Teherán (councilman), Juan Carlos Casado (mayor), and Marcelino Suárez (chief) “could count on the support, could be connected, or could even lead special armed groups”; that these allegations are worrisome “since they reveal the possible connection of persons protected by provisional measures with paramilitary groups,” and that “that does not prevent maintaining the measures originally ordered in force, since ... the members of the Community whose personal safety is threatened as a consequence of the illegal activities carried on by its leaders in conjunction with other groups, should not be unprotected.” Moreover, the Commission also asked the Court to maintain the agreed measures, that it order that these measures be implemented with due diligence so as to confront the delicate situation of the Community and to protect the members whose physical safety is threatened; that it order the State to carry out a serious and in depth investigation of the alleged connections of certain leaders and members of the Community with illegal groups, and that it intercede in favor of the creation of a Follow-up Committee for the implementation of the agreed measures that includes that participation of the petitioners. CONSIDERING 1. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and that on June 21, 1985, it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention provides that in cases of “extreme gravity or urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,” the Court, in matters that have not yet been submitted to the Court, may, at the request of the Commission, adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent. 3. That under the terms of Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: [a]t any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as it deems pertinent, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Convention. 4. That Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in that treaty and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 5. That it is the responsibility of the State to adopt security measures for all citizens, a commitment for which special efforts must be taken when it concerns persons involved in hearings before organs of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, which are established to determine whether or not the human rights set forth in the American Convention have been violated.