-33 Suárez, Edilberto Gaspar-Rosario, Dorancel Ortiz, Leovigildo Castillo, Santiago Méndez or Santiago Mendoza, Zoila Riondo, Saúl Lucas, José Guillermo Carmona or José Guillermo Cardona, Celedonio Padilla, Eudo Mejía-Montalvo, Marcelino Suárez-Lazaro, Fabio Antonio Guevara, José Luis Mendoza, Misael Suárez-Estrada, Ingilberto M. Pérez, Martín Florez, Jacinto Ortiz-Quintero, Juan Antonio Almanza-Pacheco, José Carpio Beltrán and Luis Felipe Álvarez-Polo in order to avoid irreparable damage to them, in strict compliance with the obligation to respect and guarantee human rights, which it contracted to fulfill under Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. To call upon the State of Colombia to adopt such measures as may be necessary to protect the lives and physical, psychological and moral integrity of Mr. Nilson Zurita-Mendoza or Nelson Zurita-Suárez upon his return to Zenú indigenous community Reserve in San Andrés de Sotavento. 3. To call upon the State of Colombia to conduct an effective investigation of the acts denounced, for the purpose of obtaining results that would lead to the discovery and punishment of those responsible. ... 6. To submit this order to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at its forthcoming regular session for its consideration and pertinent effects and so that, if it so deems appropriate, it may convene the parties to a public hearing at its seat in order to hear their points of view on the events and circumstances that gave rise to the request for provisional measures in the instant case. 5. The first report from the State of Colombia (hereinafter "the State" or "Colombia") submitted on April 15, 1998, in which it expressed its disagreement with the urgent measures adopted by the President, on the ground that, according to the State, during meetings held with the Commission, the latter never expressed its disagreement with the steps taken by the State on two occasions (June 18, 1996 and January 7, 1998) in compliance with the protective measures that had been adopted. The State further contended that the instant case did not conform to the actual situation described in Article 63(2) of the American Convention, because it consist of a criminal situation committed with the intervention of various private individuals. The State claimed, moreover, that it had encountered practical difficulties in providing effective protection for the San Andrés de Sotavento indigenous Reserve, which covers an area of approximately 20,000 hectares of marsh, forest and jungle and a population of approximately 35,000. Lastly, the State averred that "the tragic events of recent months would appear to have no connection with the problems that gave rise to the adoption of protective measures in favor of the indigenous community." 6. The Commission’s observations of June 8, 1998, in which it requested the Court to ratify the Order of its President of March 23, 1998. It explained that its observations suffered from a lack of detailed information concerning the recent events, since it had been unable to acquire that information, because the authorities of the Zenú indigenous community were now afraid due to the strong presence of paramilitary groups in the area. The Commission declared that in those circumstances "it was clear that persons who supplied information to the authorities [of the Zenú indigenous community] would be in serious danger and may therefore be reluctant to participate fully in the investigations." 7. The second report of the State, submitted on June 8, 1998, in which it reiterated that the instant case did not conform to the situation described in Article 63(2) of the American Convention and requested the Court to allow the case to continue its normal course before the Inter-American Commission, as it had requested at the hearing before the Commission on February 23, 1998.