9 19. With respect to the investigation of the facts that gave rise to adoption of the urgent measures, in said briefs (supra Having Seen 6 and 7) the State referred to the investigation regarding what happened on March 1, 2004 to Janeth Carrasquilla, a journalist for Globovisión. According to the State, the process is in a “state of investigation” by the Third Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial Circumscription of the State of Carabobo and “several witnesses of the facts and the aforementioned victim have been interviewed, and a forensic medical examination of the latter was ordered.” In one of its communications on September 3, 2004 (supra Having Seen 7) the State indicated that “the investigation with respect to the instant case is in the investigative phase, in the course of which various useful and necessary steps have been taken to extend elucidation of the facts and to establish liabilities[...,] especially the interviews with the complainants and approximately forty (forty) citizens[,…] forensic medical examinations of the victims, technical expert assessment of objects gathered, photographic records, and ocular inspections.” Finally, the State indicated that on May 21, 2004, the Sixty-eighth Prosecutor asked Globovisión to forward a “list of the transport units serving said company that suffered material damage in the events reported to the Second and Seventy-fourth Prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas.” 20. The Court has appraised and taken into account the information submitted by the State in its August 30, 2004 brief and in the report submitted in the two briefs sent on September 3, 2004. The three aforementioned briefs were also forwarded to the Commission and to the representatives, who may make whatever comments they deem pertinent, and the Court will assess them at the appropriate time. However, the Court has noted that in said briefs (supra Having Seen 6 and 7) the State did not refer to the development of implementation of the aforementioned measures to protect the lives, safety, and freedom of expression, and to protect the head offices of Globovisión, and did not state whether they have been effective to protect said rights, or whether the representatives have been allowed to participate in the implementation of those measures. 21. The provision set forth in Article 63(2) of the Convention makes it mandatory for the State to adopt the provisional measures ordered by this Court, since according to the basic legal principle of the international responsibility of the State, backed by international jurisprudence, the States must comply in good faith with their treaty obligations (pacta sunt servanda). 22. The State has the obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to these provisional measures, with the aim of identifying those responsible and punishing them as appropriate. NOW THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, exercising the authority granted by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: