10 State submit a thorough report insofar as it has failed to present the three bimonthly reports due between September 2005 and January 2006, as well as the report requested on December 22, 2005, which was due on January 3, 2006. 19. That the Court would also like to emphasize the importance of the submission of comments by the Commission and the representatives of the beneficiaries on the information provided by the State. The Court considers it necessary to point out that the Commission’s comments are essential to evaluate the implementation on the part of the State of the provisional measures ordered by the Court, especially considering the severity of the situation and dangerous conditions facing the beneficiaries as well as the fact that the Inter-American Commission, as an organ of the inter-American system, must provide for the protection of human rights. 20. That the State referred, inter alia, to the murders of Mr. Luis Eduardo GuerraGuerra, his wife and son, as well as to those of Mr. Alfonso Bolívar-Tuberquía, his wife and two children and Mr. Alejandro Pérez, who worked for Mr. Tuberquía, on February, 2005. In addition, the State indicated that the Colombian Public Prosecutor’s Office and Attorney General’s Office created a judicial commission to investigate said incidents and stated that the residents of the community refused to cooperate with the authorities. Furthermore, given the situation existing in San José de Apartadó, the State informed the implementation of the following policies: “[c]ommunication with the Community; [p]resence of police forces; [f]ight against illegal groups; protection of the Community; [c]oordinated action of State agencies […]; and [s]upport to investigative and oversight authorities,” and the establishment of a police station in San José de Apartadó, with permanent presence of the community police accompanied by the community ombudsman, the Government of Antoquia and the Mayor’s Office of Apartadó. Finally, the State provided information on approximately 80 investigations that are being conducted by the Unidad Nacional de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario (National Unit on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law) in Bogotá and Medellín, and by the Specialized Prosecutor’s Offices in Apartadó and Medellín, and on the cases pending in the Procuraduría Delegada Disciplinaria para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos (Delegate Disciplinary Attorney General’s Office for the Protection of Human Rights) since 2002 (supra Having Seen clause No. 12). 21. That the representatives have expressed, inter alia, their concern over the continued failure by the State to comply with the submission of periodic reports; the fact that the State report did not provide any conclusive results regarding the investigation into the massacre of February 21, 2005, which claimed the life of children Deyner Andrés Guerra-Tuberquia, Natalia Andrea and Santiago Bolivar-Muñoz, member of the Consejo Interno (Internal Council) Luis Eduardo Guerra-Guerra, his partner Bellanira Areiza Muñoz, and community leader Luis Alfonso Bolivar-Tuberquia, his wife Sandra Milena Muñoz-Posso and farmer Alejandro Pérez. In addition, they stated that on November 17, 2005, members of the army arrived in the hamlet of Arenas Altas, firing bursts of machine-gun fire and a fragmentation grenade, fatally wounding Mr. Arlen Salas David and injuring Mr. Hernán Goez. In relation to the criminal and disciplinary investigations, the representatives indicated that the State provided “a series of statistical data without citing the source of that information. […I]t is strange that the State refers to a total of 80 criminal investigations given that in [previous] reports the figures were completely different[...].” They also referred to a series of incidents that too place upon the arrival of army units in the hamlets of San José de Apartadó between February 19 and June 24, 2005, due to the action