indicating that to do so it was necessary to eradicate the sources of risk and prevent the death of another beneficiary. Likewise, Venezuela was ordered to provide immediate and effective security to each of the beneficiaries of the measures, by means of permanent guard measures, as well as to the homes of Maritza Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García, and to agree on more comprehensive provisional measures in the context of the dialogue between beneficiaries and the State. 6. Based on the information and the requests submitted by the parties, in this Order the Court shall address the following issues: (a) the request to lift the provisional measures ordered in favor of Yelitza Lugo Pelaes and Orismar Carolina Alzul García; (b) the request to lift the provisional measures ordered in favor of Nestor Caudi Barrios and Víctor Daniel Cabrera Barrios; (c) the facts related to the deaths of Víctor Tomás Navarro Barrios and Jorge Antonio Barrios, and the status of the implementation of the provisional measures regarding the rest of the beneficiaries, and d) the duty of the State to provide information. A) Regarding the request to lift the measures issued in favor of Yelitza Lugo Pelaes and Orismar Carolina Alzul García 7. The State reported that during a hearing held on March 7, 2012 it was agreed to suspend the domestic measures of protection in favor of Yelitza Lugo Pelaes, Dalila Ortuño and Orismar Carolina Alzul and their respective families, “given that, as recorded in the transcripts of the interviews on the measures of protection, these persons expressly renounced these measures.” The State provided a copy of the transcripts of those interviews, and indicated that they were carried out “in the presence of social workers and a psychologist attached to the Victims’ Assistance Unit.” Consequently, the State requested the “[l]ifting of provisional measures in favor of the citizens Yelitza Lugo Pelae[s], Dalila Ortuño and Orismar Carolina Alzul García, given their express renunciation of these.” 8. For their part, the representatives alleged that, based on the statements taken at the interviews it appears that these “were conducted with the clear objective of securing the lifting of the provisional measures and not to learn about the situation of risk affecting [the beneficiaries] and their families.” The representatives also provided a “sworn statement by [Carolina Orismar Alzul] where she denies the content of the interview transcripts and says she was deceived.” In response to the State’s objection (infra considering para. 10), the representatives stressed that “the lack of authentication of the sworn statement should not affect its content, as the State seeks to suggest.” In this regard, they emphasized that “in previous cases [they have] had major difficulties in authenticating statements.” 9. In the aforementioned sworn statement, the beneficiary stated that “[o]n March [1] […] 2012 […] [she] was interviewed by a psychologist who works in the victims’ assistance unit, [who] said she was there on behalf of Mr. Luis Aguilera, [representative of the victim, and] proceed[ed] to ask [her] several questions [including whether] officials had threatened [her… and] if she was satisfied with the measures of protection, to [which she] responded that […] the national guards had been to […] her mother’s house [, where she lives,] only twice, and that [she did] not feel satisfied with the protection measures, whereupon the official prepared a transcript in her own handwriting and asked [her] to sign it, [and], believing in the honesty of this official, [she] proceed[ed] to sign the transcript.” The beneficiary also stated that “[she] has never had protection, so she could hardly renounce something that has never existed; however [she] is not opposed to the Inter-American Court maintaining the measures of protection in [her] favor.” In this regard, she indicated that she “[d]oes not know the address of […] the Victims’ Assistance Unit”, that she “[has] never been summoned by [that U]nit […] to a meeting to discuss the scope of the measures” and that she does “not have the money to cover travel expenses when the Court of Control summons [her] to a hearing. ” 4