10 i) “The State has been placed in the need to defend itself, [because] on many occasions false facts have been attributed to the President of the Republic, the Ministers or other representative of the State, facts that are not true, [and] the President himself or some Ministers have had to come out and say ‘that is not true’, and even demonstrate the falsity of what was attributed to them […]”. j) “Dogmatically, [it is not possible] to accept […] that the State of Venezuela did not comply with the provisional measures requested by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights […]”. “Although it is true that, perhaps, the measures requested by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have not been complied with one hundred per cent, the average is not negative, the State of Venezuela has had adequate intention of complying with those measures.” k) The State is “very willing to comply with the provisional measures […], as well as with any other measures in accordance with article 23 of [the] Constitution [of the Bolivarian Republic], […] and with article 31 that […] establishes the obligation, as members of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights to comply with those measures.” 19. The documents presented by the State during the public hearing held on February 17, 2003 (supra fourteenth having seen paragraph), which consist of “documents relating to the measures taken by the prosecutors appointed to investigate the case and also measures taken by the Venezuelan Ministry of the Interior and Justice, in relation to the Luisiana Ríos et al. case.” 20. The Order of the Court of February 20, 2003, in which it decided: 1. To declare that the State ha[d] not implemented effectively the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Order of November 27, 2002. 2. To reiterate to the State the requirement that it adopt forthwith all necessary measures to protect the lives and safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe. 3. To reiterate to the State the requirement that it allow the petitioners to take part in the planning and implementation of the measures of protection and, in general, keep them informed of progress in the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 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 and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to take the necessary steps to create an appropriate mechanism to coordinate and monitor the above mentioned measures by March 21, 2003, at the latest. 6. To call upon the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures that it has adopted in compliance with this Order by February 28, 2003, at the latest. [...] 8. To call upon the State, following its communication of February 28, 2003 (supra fifth operative paragraph), to continue informing the Inter-American Court of